Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

SATA or SAS

Last response: in Storage
Share

Which Hard Drive interface would be better?

Total: 3 votes (1 blank vote)

  • SAS 6Gbps
  • 50 %
  • SATA 6Gbps
  • 50 %
October 1, 2011 5:20:47 AM

I am in charge of building a high end performance computer config for a line of customers so far here is what i
have:
1 ZOTAC AMP2! ZT-50104-10P GeForce GTX 580 (Fermi) 3072MB 384-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support
Video Card
1 ENERMAX Platimax EPM1200EWT 1200W ATX12V / EPS12V SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS PLATINUM Certified Modular
Power Supply
1 Arctic Silver AA-14G Thermal Compound
1 G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model F3-
12800CL8D-8GBXM
1 LG Black Super Multi SATA WH12LS30 LightScribe Support - OEM
1 OCZ RevoDrive X2 OCZSSDPX-1RVDX0100 PCI-E 100GB PCI-Express x4 MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
1 Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 64-bit - OEM
1 Scythe Mine 2 (SCMN-2000) 140mm Sleeve CPU Cooler
But i am confused on what hard drive interface to use as i am unsure which will be better for a high-end / gaming
rig design. So i came here to ask you all and the CPU and motherboard will be picked to with support for the hard
drive interface which the Tom's Hardware community thinks is better. The kinds or applications will range from
simple Word processing to web surfing to rendering 3 hour long 1080p 3D animations at 180 frames per second to
playing any games on the market to compiling in any language supported by Windows and/or Linux flavor. The usages
were very varied for this build when i got them. The one thing in common though was it will be a high end usage
computer thus the part list above.
The 2 drives which i am looking at are Western Digital Caviar Green 3TB SATA 6.0Gb/s Internal Hard Drive - Bare
Drive and Seagate constellation ES.2 3TB SAS 6Gb/s Internal Hard Drive - Bare Drive in which i think the SAS drive
will have better read performance but i am not sure about writes.

More about : sata sas

a c 82 G Storage
October 1, 2011 11:54:45 AM

The Seagate Constellation ES.2 3TB SAS and SATA drives should perform the same. To use SAS drives, you'll need a motherboard with a SAS controller (embedded or add-on card). SAS is worth it only if you install 15K RPM drives, but those still are much slower than SSDs.
October 2, 2011 9:10:41 PM

GhislainG said:
The Seagate Constellation ES.2 3TB SAS and SATA drives should perform the same. To use SAS drives, you'll need a motherboard with a SAS controller (embedded or add-on card). SAS is worth it only if you install 15K RPM drives, but those still are much slower than SSDs.

Though i do agree with you that any HDD is slower then a SSD that is not the main question. The main question was which interface would be better and those are the 2 drives which i found which meet the disk space requirements which i need to fullfill. If you have any other configuration at or below $350 for 3TB of disk space please post that on the forum with the interface which you will requirement out of the 2 choices also.
btw why only at 15,000 RPM is SAS better then SATA drives?
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a c 114 G Storage
October 2, 2011 10:04:44 PM

In hi end video editing machines I use the 3 TB Barracuda XT's .... anything "green" shouldn't be on the table as "green" and hi performance are usually mutually exclusive.

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_conten...

The Constellations perform better but their cost pushes them outta contention on most builds.

Also there's an issue to consider that the press notes that vendors are now selling "Near line SAS" drives which are apparently just SATA drives with a different interface. These drives don't offer none of the normal SAS benefits and are made I would assume for the sake of compatibility in an SAS environment.

For gaming, like RAID 0, you'd be very hard pressed to show one having an advantage over the other. I'd do some real life testing as the hype oft doesn't match what ya see. Here's my tests:

550 MBps 120 GB SSD - Windows Boot in 15.6 seconds
Seagate 2TB XT - Windows Boot in 21.2 seconds

That 5.6 seconds cost $300 or about 1.7 hours over an assumed 3 year life assuming ya boot once per day.....that's $176 an hour if purchased when the SSD's hit the market.

Loading to my son's fav MMO, it took roughly the same time to load off the SSD as the HD .... the HD edged the SSD on 3 outta the 5 runs with the differences being 1 or 2 tenths of a second.

As to the other stuff, for Workstation performance, I'm thinking I could squeeze better performance outta better RAM and better cooler / TIM for better OC's before the HD interface came into the discussion. If ya wanna make those boxes a bit more attractive in gaming performance wise, ya can top the 580's performance by a whopping 40% with twin 560 Ti's (900Mhz) while lowering the price too.

a c 82 G Storage
October 3, 2011 1:49:24 AM

Quote:
btw why only at 15,000 RPM is SAS better then SATA drives?
Because there are no 15K RPM SATA drives; therefore the only interface option is SAS. 15K RPM drives like the Seagate Cheetah 15K.7 have a higher transfer rate than 7200 RPM drives, but because they use lower density platters, the improvement is 0 to 40% maximum.

The Seagate Constellation ES.2 3TB SAS and SATA drives have a transfer rate up to 155 MB/s. This is slightly faster than SATA I, but it can't saturate a SATA II or a SATA III interface.
!