Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

SATA 3.o compatible with SATA 1.5 ports?

Last response: in Storage
Share
July 10, 2007 8:43:55 PM

Just what the title says. I'm running on an Socket A board and i need more storage. 450GB isn't enough, and i'm going to buy a 500GB SATA since both my IDE's are used up and i'm already using 1 of 2 SATA ports.

I read a while back that they are compatible, but i'm saving up money so i don't exactly want to make a mistake since i need the storage right now.

Thnx

Btw, i know there's really no difference between brands, but as far as reliability goes, which of these would you guys recommend?

Hitachi Deskstar E7K500 500GB Hard Drive
Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 500GB Hard Drive
WD Caviar SE16 500GB Hard Drive
Maxtor MaXLine Pro 500 500GB Hard Drive
Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3500630AS 500GB Hard Drive
Samsung SpinPoint T166 HD501LJ 500GB Hard Drive
Hitachi Deskstar T7K500 500GB Hard Drive
July 10, 2007 9:53:50 PM

Yes they are compatible. worst thing happens and it doesn't work, you can just take it back.

As per HD go look for benchies see which one performed the best depending on what you will need it for, i say either the Caviar or one of the Deskstar, but i not sure which one is best.

Here's a nice new review covering most of the drives you mentioned, good luck.
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3031&p=...
a b G Storage
July 10, 2007 10:54:41 PM

Yes, they are compatible.

Seeing as you asked about reliability, go for the Seagates. (get the 7200.10 if you can.) Even if it does fail, the warranty is 5 years compared to 3 or 1 years for the other guys.
Related resources
July 10, 2007 11:51:21 PM

Yes they are compatible. Is there an echo in here? Check for the jumper that needs to be set for them to run at 1.5. Get a drive with Perpendicular Magnetic Recording technology. the Seagate 7200.10 and the new WD Caviar WD5000AAKS have it. There are others as well. I like the WD5000AAKS

Edit: The only AAKS drive that has PMR is the 750GB. WD says it in the fine print on their web page. Don't be deceived, I was temporarily.
July 11, 2007 1:21:35 AM

id go with the seagate 7200.10. perpindicular is better, which you wont get with the 7200.9, and the 5 year warranty is best. also, i know for a fact the 7200.10s have a jumper to set between SATA 1.5gbps and 3.0gpbs. im sure the others are completely compatible as well, though.

and also... what the hell is wrong with these new forums... it feels like a "my first forums" kinda deal. seems like toms keeps getting less and less respectable..
a b G Storage
July 11, 2007 2:22:13 AM

Sorry, I certainly don't mean to hijack the thread, but yeah the new forum layout is like going back to kindergarden or something. A lot of the changes over the past year IMO are just not for the better.
July 11, 2007 2:29:39 AM

OP has his answer already.

The new format is still a little buggy. I would expect that the change was because the old engine was too slow, I could be wrong. The pages do load faster, but posting comments is still not worked out IMO. Give them time to debug it.
a b G Storage
July 11, 2007 3:53:05 AM

I have to agree with you there, it is a lot faster.
July 13, 2007 12:23:40 AM

Whoa right there Folks!!!
Note the OP is running socket A...an old mobo.

SATA is backwards compatable...meaning a 1.5 drive will funtion on a 3.0 capable mobo no problem, but the reverse is not true. The connector is physically the same, but you need to check your mobo manual, or the manufactures website. Unless your mobo says SATA 3.0 compatable, a SATA 3.0 drive isnt going to work.

July 13, 2007 1:30:33 AM

You should have no problems with compatiblity. Just check to make sure that the drive you choose, can be set to limit the speed at 1.5 GB/s. Funny I came across your post, just today I took a look in my system today to air dust it. When I looked at my harddrive, which is a Seagate 7200.10 400 GB 3.0 GB/s capable drive, I found that I left my jumper on that drive to limit the drive to 1.5 GB/s. I felt pretty stupid, since I built the computer around Christmas 2006 and never noticed until now. Honestly though, I haven't noticed any major performance increase by changing the setting to 3.0 GB/s.
a b G Storage
July 13, 2007 5:48:28 AM

turpit said:
Whoa right there Folks!!!
Note the OP is running socket A...an old mobo.

SATA is backwards compatable...meaning a 1.5 drive will funtion on a 3.0 capable mobo no problem, but the reverse is not true. The connector is physically the same, but you need to check your mobo manual, or the manufactures website. Unless your mobo says SATA 3.0 compatable, a SATA 3.0 drive isnt going to work.


The "SATAII" drives come with a jumper that will limit it to SATA. The only thing you lose is command queuing support. There shouldn't be a performance difference between SATA and SATAII, as your still limited to what disks spinning at 7200RPM can deliver.
July 13, 2007 11:45:22 PM

turpit said:
Whoa right there Folks!!!
Note the OP is running socket A...an old mobo.

SATA is backwards compatable...meaning a 1.5 drive will funtion on a 3.0 capable mobo no problem, but the reverse is not true. The connector is physically the same, but you need to check your mobo manual, or the manufactures website. Unless your mobo says SATA 3.0 compatable, a SATA 3.0 drive isnt going to work.


Whoa yourself. This is absolutely not true.

SATA works as follows:

1. There is no such thing as "SATA I" and "SATA II". SATA is one set of standards. All drives labeled "SATA" are members of that one standard.

2. SATA drives can optionally implement several features in any combination. These optional features are:

- 300MB/sec transfer rate instead of 150MB/sec transfer rate.
- NCQ (Native command queueing)
- eSATA Compliance (ability to work at voltage signalling levels for eSATA operation)
- Hot Swap (ability to respond to hot swap commands from the controller)

3. All SATA drives are supposed to operate on all SATA controllers, regardless of the feature set of either the controller or the drive. Thus, a SATA drive that implements 300MB/sec transfer rates is supposed to operate just fine on a controller that only supports 150MB/sec transfer rates (albeit at 150MB/sec speeds).

There is an exception to this rule: There are some older SATA controllers that do not properly perform the feature negotiation with the drive. In this case, the drive will often operate at it's highest capable speed (for most modern drives, this is 300MB/sec) which the controller likely doesn't support. The speed mismatch between what the drive is operating at and what the controller is operating at will cause problems. The following south bridge chips are known to have this problem:

Via VT8237
Via VT8237R
Via VT6420
Via VT6421L
SIS 760
SIS 964
Intel 82801EB (ICH 5/5R)

Therefore, drive manufacturers have implemented a jumper on all SATA drives that are capable of 300MB/sec transfer rates, where that jumper will limit the transfer rate to 150MB/sec operation.

The following pages will show you the correct jumper settings to force 150MB/sec operation on your 300MB/sec SATA drive should you need to connect it to one of the above south bridge chips, or any other SATA controller chip that is incompatible with the negotiation process:

Seagate SATA Drive jumper configuration
Maxtor SATA Drive jumper configuration
Western Digital SATA Drive jumper configuration
Samsung SATA Drive jumper configuration

Hitachi produces their drives without speed-selection jumpers. They may have problems on the above-mentioned chipsets.

4745454b said:
The "SATAII" drives come with a jumper that will limit it to SATA. The only thing you lose is command queuing support. There shouldn't be a performance difference between SATA and SATAII, as your still limited to what disks spinning at 7200RPM can deliver.


You do not lose NCQ support if you jumper a 300MB/sec capable drive to operate at 150MB/sec. The SATA transfer rate and the NCQ feature are independently implemented by the manufacturer of the device. There are hard drives out there that implement 150MB/sec transfer rates but have NCQ (Western Digital Raptors), and there are drives that implement 300MB/sec transfer rates but don't support NCQ (Seagate Barracuda 7200.9)
July 14, 2007 1:58:19 AM

SomeJoe7777 said:
Whoa yourself. This is absolutely not true.

SATA works as follows:

1. There is no such thing as "SATA I" and "SATA II". SATA is one set of standards. All drives labeled "SATA" are members of that one standard.

2. SATA drives can optionally implement several features in any combination. These optional features are:

- 300MB/sec transfer rate instead of 150MB/sec transfer rate.
- NCQ (Native command queueing)
- eSATA Compliance (ability to work at voltage signalling levels for eSATA operation)
- Hot Swap (ability to respond to hot swap commands from the controller)

3. All SATA drives are supposed to operate on all SATA controllers, regardless of the feature set of either the controller or the drive. Thus, a SATA drive that implements 300MB/sec transfer rates is supposed to operate just fine on a controller that only supports 150MB/sec transfer rates (albeit at 150MB/sec speeds).

There is an exception to this rule: There are some older SATA controllers that do not properly perform the feature negotiation with the drive. In this case, the drive will often operate at it's highest capable speed (for most modern drives, this is 300MB/sec) which the controller likely doesn't support. The speed mismatch between what the drive is operating at and what the controller is operating at will cause problems. The following south bridge chips are known to have this problem:

Via VT8237
Via VT8237R
Via VT6420
Via VT6421L
SIS 760
SIS 964
Intel 82801EB (ICH 5/5R)

Therefore, drive manufacturers have implemented a jumper on all SATA drives that are capable of 300MB/sec transfer rates, where that jumper will limit the transfer rate to 150MB/sec operation.

The following pages will show you the correct jumper settings to force 150MB/sec operation on your 300MB/sec SATA drive should you need to connect it to one of the above south bridge chips, or any other SATA controller chip that is incompatible with the negotiation process:

Seagate SATA Drive jumper configuration
Maxtor SATA Drive jumper configuration
Western Digital SATA Drive jumper configuration
Samsung SATA Drive jumper configuration

Hitachi produces their drives without speed-selection jumpers. They may have problems on the above-mentioned chipsets.



You do not lose NCQ support if you jumper a 300MB/sec capable drive to operate at 150MB/sec. The SATA transfer rate and the NCQ feature are independently implemented by the manufacturer of the device. There are hard drives out there that implement 150MB/sec transfer rates but have NCQ (Western Digital Raptors), and there are drives that implement 300MB/sec transfer rates but don't support NCQ (Seagate Barracuda 7200.9)


And having owned 3 socket A mobos with a Via VT8237 southbridges, from personal experiance I can garuntee they wont run a SATA 3.0, at any speed let, alone recognize them, while they would run a SATA 1.5. Thus I stand by my original statement: the OP is running socket A...an old mobo. SATA is backwards compatable...meaning a 1.5 drive will funtion on a 3.0 capable mobo no problem, but the reverse is not true.
July 14, 2007 3:13:23 AM

turpit said:
And having owned 3 socket A mobos with a Via VT8237 southbridges, from personal experiance I can garuntee they wont run a SATA 3.0, at any speed let, alone recognize them, while they would run a SATA 1.5. Thus I stand by my original statement: the OP is running socket A...an old mobo. SATA is backwards compatable...meaning a 1.5 drive will funtion on a 3.0 capable mobo no problem, but the reverse is not true.



If that is true, your Socket A motherboards may have been exceptions, had something wrong with them, needed a BIOS update, or a host of other reasons. But a general statement that a 300MB/sec SATA drive won't function on a motherboard that only supports 150MB/sec is absolutely not true. I am currently using dozens of Western Digital Caviar and Seagate Barracuda 300MB/sec SATA drives on 5 different machines at work (in dock/caddy removable systems) that have Intel D865PERL motherboards (865P north bridge, ICH5R south bridge), and all the drives work fine (so long as they're jumpered to 150MB/sec operation, because the ICH5R is on the above list).

There is no such thing as "backward compatibility" or "forward compatibility" here. There are not two standards. There is ONE standard. See SATA IO: Dispelling the Confusion.

If the OP has a motherboard similar to the ones you had experience with, then he may have the exact same problem, but we don't know that for sure. Until we find out, you can't state incorrect generalities.
a b G Storage
July 14, 2007 3:44:28 AM

I never heard of a SATA II (3.0) drive that would not work on a SATA I (1.5) controller. Any SATA II drive I have ever seen has a jumper to set the speed to SATA I, if there are problems. A lot of the newer boards will run the 3.0 drive on a 1.5 controller without even setting the jumper on the drive to the 1.5 setting.
I am in fact currently running a SATA 3.0 Seagate drive on my SATA 1.5 controller and it works perfectly, with or without setting the jumper. I have tried it both ways.
July 14, 2007 5:40:09 AM

Same here I am running dual Seagate 500GB 7200.10's on a SATA 1.5 controller with no problems. I also wish that people would stop this SATA I vs SATA II madness. When SATA II finally does come out the confusion will be terrible. Look what happened when they did not stop people from calling ATA -> IDE. Now that it is being called PATA to distinguish it for SATA people are even more confused.
October 30, 2007 9:11:50 PM

I got some major problem with the compatibility myself...
Currently using a Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 200GB SATA2 8MB 7200RPM
And i was given a Samsung SpinPoint T166 HD501LJ 500GB just recently.

Plugged the new one in and... Well the Bios finds it and my system finds it...
but i can't access it. Checked everything three times by now and from what i understand it should work..

Or am i totally out in the blue?
a b G Storage
October 31, 2007 3:26:48 AM

Bios finds it, "system" finds it, what do you mean you can't access it? If its new, go into disk management and reformat it. (might want to repartition it to.)
October 31, 2007 9:35:41 PM

That was jus it... I couldn't format it or anything...
But i solved it anyway... Somehow the system didn't like it and it was turned "off" in some odd way. So i managed to turn it on and then i was able to reformat it.
a b G Storage
October 31, 2007 10:05:43 PM

Just thought I'd chime in here...

I have a Socket A motherboard that's still kicking, and I've connected my Seagate 320GB 7200.10 to the 1.5GB/s SATA controller and it worked even without using a jumper to change the drive from SATA 3.0GB/s. Yes it does work.

Oh, and by default the 7200.10 Seagates come with the jumper set to 1.5GB/s. You have to take the jumper off to enable 3.0GB/s.
October 31, 2007 10:20:47 PM

Socket As WILL work with SATA 3.0 drives. Sometimes the BIOS on the older boards was a bit flaky, but as long as the SATA ports are activated in the BIOS and enabled in the OS, with 1.5 Gb/s jumpers in place on the drive, everything should be fine. If the jumper is not in place, the machine will not even know the drive is there.

Besides all that, there are many SATA adapters which will allow you to connect the newer SATA to standard PATA.
October 31, 2007 11:16:11 PM

Just a note for all: SATA 2.0 doesn't stand for 3Gps! It's simply a revision of the previous 1.0 standard with new added features (like NCQ).
The link speed has nothing to do with either version of the standard, that's an electrical specification (phisical layer) not related to the transport or application layer covered by the 2.0 revision.

Drives and controller must auto-negotiate the link speed, like any high speed serial link does, but some older controllers' transceiver (like older VIAs) provide very poor signal quality resulting in link errors.
Check for the exact controller type and revision before buying your new drive.
September 10, 2008 2:14:21 PM

a Asus a7n8x-e board will not work with a sata 3 drive, no matter where you have the settings on the hd set
May 23, 2009 12:22:26 AM

It looks like the VIA VT8237 chip is the problem-maker. My ASUS A8V with the VIA Southbridge works well with a Seagate 750 SATA drive at 150 MB (jumper on), but the Segate 1TB will force the chip to not recognize any SATA drive. There doesn't seem to be a (free) bios revision later than 5.1.2600.220. This is a popular chipset and it's too bad that VIA or ASUS doesn't offer any support. We'll have to replace the on-board SATA hardware with a plug-in board. Gives ASUS a blot on their record.
September 18, 2009 2:37:07 AM

Wow that is all confusing... I just installed a 500GB 7200 RPM Seagate drive in my MBPro Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2 GHz. The hardware description for my drive says:
Vendor: Intel
Product: ICH8-M AHCI
Speed: 1.5 Gigabit
Description: AHCI Version 1.10 Supported

The drive I put in was a 3.0 Gigabit drive.

I didn't do anything with any jumpers, just installed it right out of the box. Everything works fine, except my battery life is a lot shorter and the laptop seems to run a little hotter than before.

Do I need to do the jumper thing to get my battery life back? BTW I got a brand new battery from Apple so it's not the battery.

October 19, 2009 12:58:37 AM

I bought it today and my MB Asus k7Upgrade-880 supports only 1,5 gb/stransfer rate while the new HDD supports 3 gb/s transfer rate -so I guess now I found why my BIOS and my Windows and my LInux don't recognize it.

So what should I do about it? I heard I msut change some jumpers even if the guy from the pc shop didn't give me any install cd nor any jumpers or info about how to shift the speed to 1,5 gb/s although I've told him I have this kind of MB.

Could you guys tell me between what pins I must place the jumper so that the Samsung HD503HI Eco Green it's accepted by my K7Upgrade-880?

If Samsung doesn't support transfer rate shifting, I guess I need to go back and exchange it with what kind of HD? I read here that Seagate is limited at 1,5 Gb/s from the start? Should I buy one ?
March 13, 2010 8:54:01 PM

turpit said:
And having owned 3 socket A mobos with a Via VT8237 southbridges, from personal experiance I can garuntee they wont run a SATA 3.0, at any speed let, alone recognize them, while they would run a SATA 1.5. Thus I stand by my original statement: the OP is running socket A...an old mobo. SATA is backwards compatable...meaning a 1.5 drive will funtion on a 3.0 capable mobo no problem, but the reverse is not true.


I guarantee you're wrong. You simply were unable to fix your motherboard's issue with outdated firmware for the sata controller. It has nothing to do with the SATA 1.5 vs. SATA 3.0 but only with the SIZE of the HDD. Older motherboards had older sata controllers. And they have firmware which supports only lower size hard drives. For example, only up to 250GB HDD's or something like that. I had this same issue myself, also on a Socket A mobo, and I fixed it. After I updated the firmware for the sata/raid controller chip, it was able to recognize my samsung f3 spinpoint 1TB drive, without any jumpers or tools to change its interface speed, and I was able to use it as the boot drive and install winXP on it. (Motherboard = GA-7N400 Pro by gigabyte)

The only problem is some of these stupid chipset companies do not make their firmware updates readily available... *ahem* Via
a b G Storage
March 14, 2010 12:52:48 AM

The most recent limit was 127GB. A drive larger then this would be recognized, but you would only be able to use it up to the limit. This means a 160GB drive would be 127GBs large, as would a 250GBs, etc. It would still show up.

This thread is old, I thought we had decided some older chipsets don't support SATAII properly. I suggest this thread dies/gets locked.
March 14, 2010 7:20:57 PM

4745454b said:
The most recent limit was 127GB. A drive larger then this would be recognized, but you would only be able to use it up to the limit. This means a 160GB drive would be 127GBs large, as would a 250GBs, etc. It would still show up.


No. Incorrect. A drive larger than the limit will not be usable. My motherboard would simply stop booting at the RAID screen where it scanned my SATA ports. There was no way to get around it. And absolutely no way to use the drive. Once I modded the motherboard's BIOS by incorporating the newer firmware for my SI 3112 chip, then the problem vanished. It booted correctly past the place where it used to lock up, and in short everything worked flawlessly after that.

For more details about my personal experience and its resolution (including links to how to mod the BIOS in this way) you can see here:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1491016
a b G Storage
March 15, 2010 4:12:04 AM

Ok, then you had a different problem. I don't remember the OP saying his computer locked up during boot.
March 15, 2010 5:28:26 AM

4745454b said:
I don't remember the OP saying his computer locked up during boot.


That's because the OP didn't even try it. The original question was posed before buying the hardware.

My point does answer the question of sata compatibility, though. While the 300MB/s transfer rate MAY cause failure, as described by SomeJoe7777 (and which is fixable via the jumper setting), the size of the hard drive will ALWAYS cause failure if the size is larger than what the controller's firmware was designed to handle at the time. Like I said, I can now run my 300MB/s hard drive on my 150MB/s port on my socket A mobo without using the jumper.

This issue has been described by others, like here:
http://home.icequake.net/~nemesis/blog/index.php/archiv...

Which is how I stumbled across this thread lol.
a b G Storage
March 15, 2010 8:50:28 PM

Haven't clicked the link.

I still don't see how is prevents boot. I've used to big drives before and never had a problem. Granted they were all IDE, but I can't see how being SATA would be any different. You plug in the to big drive, and only get to use what the computer can handle. Thats it. I've never had a problem booting with one. And this was with 2GB, 8GB, and 127GB "blocks".
July 6, 2013 2:07:27 PM

turpit said:
Whoa right there Folks!!!
Note the OP is running socket A...an old mobo.

SATA is backwards compatable...meaning a 1.5 drive will funtion on a 3.0 capable mobo no problem, but the reverse is not true. The connector is physically the same, but you need to check your mobo manual, or the manufactures website. Unless your mobo says SATA 3.0 compatable, a SATA 3.0 drive isnt going to work.



I'm glad you commented. My Asrock K7VT6 mainboard has a 2004 BIOS, issued only one year after SATA was introduced. So, the BIOS knows nothing about later SATA versions. Not surprisingly, a SATA3 drive is not recognized by this system. although it claims SATA as one of its features.

If I attempt to retrofit a SATA 3 drive to this mainboard, I am told by Seagate techs there is should be no problem if I use the Seagate / Maxtor "Force 150" option. The problem is that option seems to offer no solution-- after loading the appropriate 2004 SATA drivers into the SATA controller listed in Device Manager, my XP Professional SP3 system still does not see the SATA3 drive (ST1000DM003) in the mainboard BIOS or anywhere else. Instead, Device Manager places a yellow mark over the VIA Serial ATA Controller, with the message "This device cannot start. (Code 10)"

One poster who has been very helpful to me claims that loading proper drivers is not the issue, but a deeper, BIOS-level inability to recognize the newer SATA3 HD. The system does show I have loaded the Asrock RAID utility properly, but that utility does not display any SATA drive of any description attached.

Have you any opinion on this?

July 6, 2013 5:04:23 PM

BillM47 said:
It looks like the VIA VT8237 chip is the problem-maker. My ASUS A8V with the VIA Southbridge works well with a Seagate 750 SATA drive at 150 MB (jumper on), but the Segate 1TB will force the chip to not recognize any SATA drive. There doesn't seem to be a (free) bios revision later than 5.1.2600.220. This is a popular chipset and it's too bad that VIA or ASUS doesn't offer any support. We'll have to replace the on-board SATA hardware with a plug-in board. Gives ASUS a blot on their record.


And a blot to Asrock, in Taiwan, as well. Thanks for your post-- this describes my situation with an older Asrock mainboard almost exactly. Because I never needed to run add any SATA drive on this socket A mainboard (XP SP3), but only very large IDEs, and many SCSIs, I never faced the problem until now.

My Asrock mainboard is a model V7KT6 (with VIA 8237 / KT600 chipset), and brought many well-meaning posters to recommend everything from a hardware / BIOS-level problem to a drivers issue. Nothing worked with either a substitution of data and power cables or a Force 150 jumper setting, but now I understand the Force 150 option is at least part of the solution, if somehow I can persuade the system to recognize the SATA HD by resolving the remaining factor(s).

Model K7VT6 (Socket-A)
Version 1.0x
Chipset Vendor VIA
Chipset Model KT600
Chipset Revision 80
Southbridge Vendor VIA
Southbridge Model VT8237
Southbridge Revision 00
BIOS Brand American Megatrends Inc.
Version P1.30
Date 07/19/2004

I have been through the Asrock drivers CD repeatedly, and several locations on the CD have the same driver (not surprisingly), but uninstalling, then re-installing that driver simply does not work. Device Manager places a yellow mark over the latest-installed VIA driver, informing me "This device does not work. Code 10"

Naturally, Asrock refuses to touch the issue, despite having acknowledged my technical support request message 10 days ago, and counting.... After so many years, Asrock indifference might be defensible, except for the fact the product advertised basic SATA compatibility as part of its feature set. At least an attempt to explain the situation, if not also to help resolve the issue, would seem appropriate for continuing Asrock consumer confidence.

In any case, I plan to install the drive on a newer board, and at least format and partition it for use as a USB external drive to image my other systems. Even so, a solution for the Asrock mainboard remains important, since much of my data and apps still come from this venerable XP SP3 workstation, on which I am working now.
July 6, 2013 5:08:00 PM

alphaa10 said:

I'm glad your commented. My Asrock K7VT6 mainboard has a 2004 BIOS, issued just a year after SATA was introduced. So, the BIOS knows nothing about later SATA versions.

If I attempt to retrofit a SATA 3 to this mainboard, I am told by Seagate techs there is no problem if I used the Seagate / Maxtor "Force 150" option. The problem is that option seems to make no difference-- after loading the appropriate 2004 SATA drivers into the SATA controller listed in Device Manager, my XP Professional SP3 system does not see the SATA3 (ST1000DM003) in the mainboard BIOS or anywhere else.

One poster who has been very helpful to me claims that XP and loading proper drivers is not the issue, but a basic BIOS-level inability to recognize the newer SATA3 HD. The system shows no SATA3 or SATA of any description attached.

Have you any opinion on this?




Check my above posts, and provided links. The solution is there.

This is probably the best starting point:
http://home.icequake.net/~nemesis/blog/index.php/archiv...
July 7, 2013 2:27:57 AM

darussiaman16 said:
alphaa10 said:

I'm glad your commented. My Asrock K7VT6 mainboard has a 2004 BIOS, issued just a year after SATA was introduced. So, the BIOS knows nothing about later SATA versions.

If I attempt to retrofit a SATA 3 to this mainboard, I am told by Seagate techs there is no problem if I used the Seagate / Maxtor "Force 150" option. The problem is that option seems to make no difference-- after loading the appropriate 2004 SATA drivers into the SATA controller listed in Device Manager, my XP Professional SP3 system does not see the SATA3 (ST1000DM003) in the mainboard BIOS or anywhere else.

One poster who has been very helpful to me claims that XP and loading proper drivers is not the issue, but a basic BIOS-level inability to recognize the newer SATA3 HD. The system shows no SATA3 or SATA of any description attached.

Have you any opinion on this?




Check my above posts, and provided links. The solution is there.

This is probably the best starting point:
http://home.icequake.net/~nemesis/blog/index.php/archiv...


A few questions, since I am noob on flashing modifications--

1. In one of the threads, a poster referred to a BIOS backup utility, just in case something goes wrong with the process. What product do you recommend?

2. Do all the OEMs which offer BIOS "upgrades" roll up all previous modifications in the latest upgrade?

3. I am not an experienced hex editor user-- what product do you recommend?

Editing a BIOS seems the most elegant way to address a BIOS limitation, if all goes well. Thanks for the reference to Synaesthesia-- very valuable.
July 15, 2013 11:24:31 PM

I've been a computer systems engineer for 30 years, with three degrees. It is absolutely amazing how many "know-it-all's," do not know what they are talking about on here, but go on with your arguing. Then go argue with Western Digital, VIA and SIS...

http://wdc.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/search/1/a_i...

And be sure to tell them all this junk about SATA being SATA and the transfer-rate having nothing to do with the generation suffix...

In short, it is a southbridge controller issue, such as VIA 8237R, they are hard coded, will NOT auto-negotiate to lower transfer rates, they can not be flashed. Mostly from ECS. (ASUS, etc.)

(That is the reason the disk manufactures put the forced transfer rate jumper on the disk to start with... i.e. force the disk to 150Gb/s)

If there is no jumper, or you are dealing with a SATA III which can only be forced down to SATA II,
Ohhhh, that should be a SATA with a transfer rate of,,, blah blah blah...

How do you fix this?
Get an add on card from a third party, that will auto-negotiate. (PCI to SATA, PCIe to SATA, etc....) Be sure to research the third party cards, some have their own issues. Especially if you are trying to install a SATA III,
OH,,, I'm sorry a SATA with a 6Gb/s transfer rate. (which is a SATA III),,,, geee,
if you are trying to install a SATA III disk on a third party card.

Now go back to your arguing... :pfff: 
a b G Storage
July 16, 2013 12:26:01 AM

Attitude much? I'm surprised a 30yr engineer would be so rude.

This thread is ancient, going to get closed now.
!