SCSI vs. IDE Ultra ATA, who is the winner? *DELETED*

Post deleted by kn7671
11 answers Last reply
More about scsi ultra winner deleted
  1. I've said this in my own words so many times on this board I'm blue in the face.

    Review: >>>The least expensive drive of this test is no loser at all. If you are looking for a system drive with a good price/performance ratio, any high-end IDE drive similar to the IBM DTLA series will provide excellent performance which is not far away from three or four times higher priced SCSI monsters. <<<<

    The peformance gain for the latest high-end SCSI drives is there and noticeable.. it's minimal and at a high cost. But it is there. This does not apply to SCSI in general. If you want to do better than the latest IDE drives, you have to buy the latest high-end SCSI drives.

    >>I have maintained this all along, IDE is better and faster in most cases for the standard user.<<<

    Not really better and faster. But smarter from an economical standpoint. The only SCSI drive not performing better than the the 75 GXP was the 3 year old 9ZX (one of their first 10,000 RPM models). Which only shows if you pay 4-500 dollars for a high-end SCSI drive for a single user setup in 2-3 years, there will be 100-200$ IDE drives that will outperform it. That's not smart money, but it's relative. And some people just don't care. It doesn't apply to RAID setups as much. The low aureal densities for SCSI drives are countered by running them in a RAID setup and they maintain their benefit of low access times along with a decent STR for a longer period of time.

    >>Tom now has a review comparing SCSI and IDE, and the benefits to reaffirm what I have been saying all along. <<

    Nope.. it just reaffirms what I said above. You can get a small noticeable gain from the latest high-end SCSI drives compared to the latest IDE drives, but it will come at a cost. Also note that the majority of even the latest IDE drives don't really have an access time as competitive as the 75GXP, and their overall system performance will not be as good compared to the latest SCSI drives.

    ***Hey I run Intel... but let's get real***
  2. Well I have beaten this horse so many times that I have lost count but what I do know is that most of those that have been running ATA devices and move past that critical number of 4 devices start to feel the squeez of the IRQ shortage in the average PC. I have a 9.1G Cheeta, a 18.2G Barracuda, a 4416S CD burner, a 303S DVD drive, a Zip 100S drive, and a 1G Jazz drive. All devices are SCSI and in the box and all run from one PCI slot on one IRQ, ATA just don't do that. I have a number of friends that have run ATA and converted over to SCSI and all wouldn't go back. Yes ATA is cheap and it's fast or faster when compaired to the same platter speed SCSI drive. Now hang 2 drives off of the same channel on the ATA bus and do the same with the same SCSI drives and transfer data between the 2 ATA drives and the 2 SCSI drives and tell me which one is the faster then. I hate to wait for anything and the faster the drive I can get the better. If ATA is the greatest thing since sliced bread then why is it that they are just now coming out with 10K ATA drives when they have been out in SCSI for almost the last 3 years? Forget ATA, SCSI all the way!

  3. I think SCSI pulls out on top.

    Please visit <b><A HREF="" target="_new"></A></b>
  4. SCSI is better in every respect bar cost. I have IDE drives because of cost, but if there wasn't such a huge price difference then I would have SCSI drives.
  5. Yes, definitely.

    SCSI-drive does much less seeking than IDE-drive in real world, where data is not neatly sequential and carefully arranged as in tests.

    SCSI-disk has command buffer of 32 command, IDE has none.

    So when you have 50 disk requests, IDE-drive makes 50 seeks in order they came(=50 random seeks), SCSI-disks do two sweeps across the disk fetching commands from buffer in suitable order (=2 full seeks). You do the math.
  6. It all has to do with how many devices you want to access at once. I had an IDE CDR on my system as secondary master and a CDROM as primary slave (so that my CDR would not have to share the same chain). CD to CD copies worked OK as long as I did not try to access my hard drive for other aplications, where I would start making coasters. And of course I could not play games with my CDROM while burning from my IDE drive. Now, I replaced the CDR with a SCSI CDRW, and put the CDROM on secondary master, and all my problems went away. This is the simplest example I can think of where SCSI has an advantage over IDE in that it is able to access more than one device at a time (I can play around in my SCSI 2nd hard drive while burning with no ill results). For slower devices such as scanners and CRRWs, a cheap older SCSI card does the job, and can free your IDE controller up for using just the hard drive. So for price and performance a combination of both can be just as good as pure SCSI and cost a lot less.

    Suicide is painless...........
  7. Hello all,
    Technically all these comparisons are not between SCSI and IDE and as such conclusions drawn on SCSI Vs IDE by Tom is totally incorrect. Since almost all the parameters for comparisons are not so much influenced by the interface spec like SCSI/IDE as Rotational speed. The comparison is something like this. After comparing an 1Ghz Athlon system having 8MB memory against a 1Ghz Pentium-III system having 256MB memory and running all business bench marks and coming to conclusion Athlon loses badly against Pentium-III. Maybe non-technical people can be conned into believing that Tom compared really SCSI and IDE but in fact he really compared a 10000 rpm HDD against a 7200 rpm and unashamedly gave the credit to SCSI. So much for the fairness of Tom!
  8. My point is that the true advantage of SCSI is it's ability to access multiple drives simultaniously. For the average user, a cheap older SCSI card can be used for other devices while delegating the IDE channel to the hard drive, accomplishing nearly the same result.

    Suicide is painless...........
  9. >>10000 rpm HDD against a 7200 rpm <<

    do you think that's the only difference between those drives he compared?? So SCSI 7200 and IDE 7200 are exactly alike with IDE beating SCSI 7200 drives because IDE is better? And do you think 10000 RPM IDE drives will be just as good as 10000 RPM SCSI drives?


    ***Hey I run Intel... but let's get real***
  10. cpu usage is low w/ scsi cause of controllers has memory buffers

    First person to get a topic banned. ABIT BP6 Lives FOREVER!!!
  11. Been talkin about this alot lately with my own struggle to decide, heres what ive come up with:

    Im prob going to end up buying 2-45 gig IBM 75GXPs, at about 150 (on the high side) each. They arent as fast as some of the best SCSIs, as most have pointed out, but they are VERY fast, and reliable, and COOL and QUIET. Dont discount that. Im also going to most likely purchase the Promise SuperTrak 100 for about 323. This Raid controller has a RISC CPU on board, and comes with 16 megs of ram, UGable to 164 (EDO DIMM). So you now have IDE that uses as little CPU as SCSI. The speed i see with this setup will make my little raid array, with 90 gigs of space, about as fast as the fastest SCSI out there..BY ITSELF. SCSI Raids will still beat it, but with ALOT of heat, and a HUGE amount of money. For $623 ill have 90 gigs of high speed reliable drive, youd be REALLY LUCKY to buy a single 36.4 SCSI drive for that-forget 90 gigs--and dont forget to add a fan, which will add to the noise of yer new SCSI drive (G)

    I think ive made up my mind.


    " He who (BLEEPS) nuns, will later join the church " Joe Strummer, The Clash - "Death or Glory"
Ask a new question

Read More

Hard Drives SCSI Storage