SCSI or IDE for optical drives?

[Mistyk]

1) I'm about to get a mobo with dual U160-SCSI channels, one of which will host a HDD. I will also buy a DVD-reader and a CD-writer. Should I opt for SCSI-versions and hook them to the second U160-SCSI channel or go IDE and leave the second channel unused?

2) Is it problematic to convert U160-SCSI to the SCSI-50pin used by optical drives?

3) The fastest optical drives are not available with a SCSI interface, which is why a SCSI-setup would inherently be slower than an IDE-setup. The advantages of the former is however the low CPU-usage and the reliability. When duplicating CDs using two drives on the same SCSI-chain, I guess the data flow is entirely handled by the SCSI-controller. Thus, the copying process does not have an impact on the performance of the computer and moreover, no other heavy applications will interfere with the duplication. Is the discussion lame or reasonable?

4) If the above is true to an extent, how well does it apply to the fast optical IDE-drives and CPUs (dual) of today? Some claim that IDE-drives have reached the low CPU-utilisation of their SCSI-counterparts. Others swear by the superior responsiveness of SCSI-drives.

5) Which is the best DVD-reader with a SCSI interface?
How about PIONEER DVD-ROM 10X/40X DVD-305S INTERNAL SCSI?

5) Which is the best CD-writer with a SCSI interface?
How about PLEXTOR PLEXWRITER 12/10/32S INTERNAL SCSI?

6) Another somewhat fussy advantage of a SCSI-setup would be that since the HDD uses the same interface, the complete system would be SCSI-based. I'm not quite sure why this would be preferable, but it seems that for example Dell's workstations work badly or not at all when SCSI- and IDE-devices are mixed.

Thanks for your help!

 

[ath0mps0]

I used to insist on SCSI for CD writing, but the situation has changed significantly. The largest difference has been the power of the CPU with the second and third being the introduction of UDMA compatible CD/DVD-ROMs and CD/DVD-R/RWs with buffer under-run protection. The noticeable difference between SCSI and IDE is getting so slight that I pretty much always recommend IDE.

There is no issue down-converting SCSI, just so long as the lowerspeed devices are the last in the chain for external devices - you can't re-up-convert after down-converting - and you terminate correctly. For internal devices you just use a converter on the ribbon cable.

The two disadvantages that SCSI has you pointed out yourself: 1) price, 2) high-speed burner availability.

Except for my database server systems I have pretty much moved to UDMA/ATA exclusively.

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.

 

[Guest]

You sure ask a lot of questions.heh

Have a good look through this site at <A HREF="http://www.storagereview.com" target="_new">storagereview </A> particulary under the "Leaderboard" heading.

IMHO as a SCSI user I am more than satisfied with its performance compared to IDE, many things you have mentioned are still true and it will attract some opposition in opinions. I have a mix of SCSI hard drives and IDE optical drives at present and believe me as a package it is very fast.

If you want SCSI and are prepared to pay for it, it is worth it, you won't be disapointed.
Thats my 20 cents worth

<A HREF="http://www.herveybayqueensland.com/whaletext.html" target="_new">My backyard </A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by scotty3303 on 04/19/02 09:14 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Mistyk]

Your replies have been very helpful, thanks! I've run this thread in parallell on a few other message boards and the content is somewhere along these lines:

1) I get the impression that Toshiba represents the cream of the crop when it comes to DVD-readers. What are your thoughts on its newest model "Toshiba SD-M1612, IDE internal DVD-rom"? Is it the unquestionable leader in all aspects? If not, which drive is?

2) I hear the DAE capabilities of the Toschiba line of DVD-roms are not first-class. Would you suggest compensating for that by opting for a CDRW, which extracts audio splendidly?

3) How well does Plextor's PlexWriter 40/12/40A perform at DAE? Even though Plextor might not be as superior in supplying quality drives as it once was, I suppose their units are still among the best? Can anyone recommend another CDRW that offers greater performance/features/quality than the above mentioned 40X PlexWriter?

As you can see I will likely go IDE for optical drives, though my system disk will be U160. Though I'm not 100% convinced (you still have the chance to change my mind), the advantages of the new IDE drives seem to outweigh the disadvantages. Note however that I think SCSI is the preferable interface. It's just that the newer mechanisms of today's IDE drives, along with UDMA etc., make up for the down-sides of IDE. It goes without saying that if SCSI-drives were not EOL, I'd get them in an instant.

As a side-note, I've never ever had an IDE-device of any kind apart from my current CD-rom (which I didn't choose myself).

If you think that my writing posts in list form is odd, the explanation is that the posts would probably not be readable otherwise due to the abundance of questions

(Hmm, why don't smileys work on this forum?)

 

[Guest]

Most importantly smileys are different here, <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq" target="_new">clicky here for info</A>

Only one real way my friend for you to experience what I do in hard disk performance and that is to try it, ok you may pay a little more but with my SCSI IBM's I have a five year warranty and some major kick ass performance. But my HD's are 2 y/o and there has been some bigtime improvements in SCSI in access times and speed and the same goes for IDE.

As far as DVD's go I really do not have any experience.

I run IDE opticals with a SCSI systems and sepertate programs disk and believe it suits what I need and I just love the multitasking mate! .

<A HREF="http://www.herveybayqueensland.com/whaletext.html" target="_new">My backyard </A>