Tom's Hardware > Forum > Storage > Hard Disks > USB2 VS SATA for file storage

USB2 VS SATA for file storage

Forum Storage : Hard Disks - USB2 VS SATA for file storage

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Word :    Username :           
 

Hi!

So my question is this:

I've scouted some really good prices for 2 different HDD's.

WESTERN DIGITAL ELEMENTS 500GB USB2.0 7200RPM 8MB

and

SAMSUNG F1 750GB 3.5\" SATA2 7200RPM 32MB HD753LJ

I will use them mainly for data storage. Will the difference be big in performance? Or is it not important for this kind of a task?

I of course understand, that the External one will offer much more freedom, but will it work as good as the internal one while connected to pc?

Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.

Any device connected to USB 2.0 will be limited by the speed of a USB 2.0 port which is around 34-36MB a second. (its rated at 480mbps but Ihave never seen it) So its not the speed of the drive that would matter in this case. If you took the same drive and plugged it into a SATA port of course it would likely be much faster.

------------------------------ Intel DX48BT2 bone trail 2 || Q9650 with Xigmatek S1283 || 4GB Gskill DDR3 1600 || 1 - 300GB 15k SAS boot , 3 - 750GB SATA Raid 5 || Adaptec 5805 SAS RAID controller || ATI 3870 || Antec 300 Chassis with Nspire 600 watt PS
Reply to rozar

The only difference i can think of is the transfer speed. I myself have 3 external HDD's because i had no room for internal HDD's in my previous system. I would advise you to go with the internal HDD since it's faster and bigger for roughly the same money. If i could do it all over i would have never got these external HDD's because there slow and they make a lot more noise than an internal HDD does. (for reference i have a lacie brick, lacie porsche and a lacie big disk D2).

Reply to X5-769

Another thought if you want external, use eSATA if you can. I have a 750GB eSATA drive and it is faster than USB for sure and I get the benefit of it being portable. It also has a USB 2.0 connector for other systems if necessary.

------------------------------ Intel DX48BT2 bone trail 2 || Q9650 with Xigmatek S1283 || 4GB Gskill DDR3 1600 || 1 - 300GB 15k SAS boot , 3 - 750GB SATA Raid 5 || Adaptec 5805 SAS RAID controller || ATI 3870 || Antec 300 Chassis with Nspire 600 watt PS
Reply to rozar

+1 on the eSATA. Only thing is that your MB needs to have eSATA support (connectors). But you can use the USB on other systems like rozar said. The external drives i mentioned were USB and there slow as hell especially when you are transferring big loads of data like i do. I use my external drives for backup by the way so i don't you them very often

------------------------------ Asus P5E WS Pro | Intel Q9450 @ 3.2Ghz | Sycthe Mugen | Asus 9600GT Silent | 4 x 2GB OCZ Gold XTC DDR2 800 | Cooler Master Cosmos 1000 | 2x Samsung F1 750GB | Samsung F1 1TB | Cooler Master 620Watt Modulair PSU | Vista Ultimate 64-bit |
Reply to X5-769
Tom's Hardware > Forum > Storage > Hard Disks > USB2 VS SATA for file storage
Go to:

There are 531 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them