SATA v IDE A Few Facts

[gamma1]

You all ready ?
Here I go:
SATA -150 is not technologically sound and will never reach the speeds it claims. At present ATA-5 7200 RPM 8 mb cache is the Drive or Drive to be running, test after test show that these drives are faster that SATA-150, why is this ? I'll present a table and you can see for yourself, the answer has been there all along , its just now taken root.
SCSI 320 uses 80 wires shielded max transfer 320 MB /sec
SCSI 160 uses 68 wires shielded max transfer 160 MB/s
SCSI,wide uses 50 wires shielded max transfer 20-80 Mb/sec
ect
ATA-5 uses 40 wires shielded max transfer 100 MB/sec
SATA-150 uses 7 wires shielded max transfer 150 Mb/s (?)

Do you see the pattern here yet? More Data transfer wires , the faster data can transfer between host and interface, there are other facts , I'm not going to cover as they are proprietary, however, look at telephone lines, there are thousands in a bundle, not 7 !!!!!!! If it was more efficient to run fewer telephone lines , they would be doing it and save, SATA is simply a very cost cutting model, they cut out the very features we want increased, stable , reliable, Fastest speed transmissions by the highest amount of wires, OH, by the way, Disk Drives are "snails speed" to ram ,ect. They need to speed up.
Thank goodness , SCSI has models that run at 12.5 GB/sec, Keeping up with all,,and running circles around these snails pace disk drive companies that want our money all the time and not giving us what we deserve, equality in speed thruout our computer as much as possible.They are lagging behind.
Gamma1

 

[blah]

Wow, where were you all these years, we missed so much of your wisdomz

PS: you should open yer own HD factory and be da boss there and we all will have to bow and ask your highness to let us use HD in our PC


..this is very useful and helpful place for information...

 

[Crashman]

LMAO! d00d, to begin with I've NEVER SEEN an 80-wire cable. 80-pin drives normally use 68-pin cables. They connect to that cable through an adapter (usually a drive tray) that uses the other pins for things like Drive ID.

50-pin SCSI cables have a maximum 20MB/s. We're already seing drives put out 4x that amount on 40-pin 80-wire cables. And even 40-wire cables put through 33MB/s.

SATA is Serial, so it doesn't need as many wires. That probably just passed over your head, so I'll stop there.

But the fact is there are NO U320 drives that are faster than 160MB/s. Really! The DISK transfer is the bottleneck, not the cable.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[etp777]

Yep 80pin SCA is the same 68 data pins as the 68 pin connector plus extras for power, drive id, etc.

Overall, original post in this thread is good for a laugh, thanks guy.

 

[jammydodger]

The more cables you use the more interfearance there is between signals. This means you cannot use fast transfer rates with lots of cables because all the signals interfear with each other...that is why they have moved from parellel to serial!!!

Retard.

<font color=blue>P4c 2.6@3.25
512Mb PC4000
2x120Gb 7200.7 in RAID0
Waterchill KT12-L30
Abit AI7
Radeon 9800Pro
</font color=blue>

 

[jammydodger]

The more cables you use the more interfearance there is between signals. This means you cannot use fast transfer rates with lots of cables because all the signals interfear with each other...that is why they have moved from parellel to serial!!!

Retard.

<font color=blue>P4c 2.6@3.25
512Mb PC4000
2x120Gb 7200.7 in RAID0
Waterchill KT12-L30
Abit AI7
Radeon 9800Pro
</font color=blue>

 

[sjonnie]

Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) will be released to replace U320/640 SCSI, perhaps later this year or next. In the meantine SATAII development is well in progress and the specs for SATAIII have also been drawn up, each doubling the transfer rate.

SCSI has models that run at 12.5 GB/sec

Heh, RAM doesn't work that fast dude.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/myanandtech.html?member=114979" target="_new">My PCs</A>

 

[gamma1]

Seeing how your IQ's here is very LOW ! Heres some other Facts!!!

SATA Signal Voltage is 0.25V Low volt, like your IQ's,,lol

ATA signal voltage is 5V,, 20 TIMES HIGHER.

Signal voltage is voltage between the disk drive and the Circuit Board

There is no way to transfer data faster with less voltage using less wires , it is impossible !!!!!
IS THERE PART OF THIS YOU DONT UNDERSTAND ? 1 +1 =2, abc...
2-1=1.
If you dont understand, go get a beginner's book in electonics and when you can see and understand , that what I have said is "true" dont say I'm right and you are wrong !! I know that already , lots of laughs

YOU people here would argue , that DSL and CABLE modems operate at less signal strength than dial up modems 56 K, lol,,,,get your facts straight!!! Your arguements here are weak, have no foundation , and just plain arguementative, so your support for arguements , wheres your proof ????


If I said the moon was made of green cheese, would you
believe that ?? evidently you people do...,lol

some people are gullible !!! Believe anything someone says, without checking it out,,,lol,,,
PT Barnum,,,said "There a sucker born every minute ", I know now who he was referring too, the critics on this site.

As too the wires and speed , you evidently cannot read or have never owned any SCSI's.

This info is for people to view and give them a few facts, they can check it out by asking anyone with electronics knowledge,

 

[etp777]

So in your mind a 1Hz signal at 300V is going to be able to carry more data than a 500MHz signal at .5V?

man you're funny.

 

[blah]

""IQ's here is very LOW""

lol

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...

 

[gamma1]

"DSL modems are not limited to using only the voice frequencies passed by the standard telephone system (typically 0-4kHz); DSL modems typically use more than 100kHhz." Of course DSLAM must be within some feet , ect, ect.

Translate DSL bandwidth and voice bandwith into signal voltage potential and then say,,,Gamma1 your right, I'm wrong and admit I was mislead by " marketing hype ", they just want my money, I should get the facts and keep getting them until there is no possible way to be wrong !
By the way DSL is overpriced,,,,,,lol,,,Now the IQ is higher here,,I wonder why ???
Gamma1


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by gamma1 on 05/27/04 01:23 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[etp777]

LVD SCSI has a 1.25V signal voltage. So ATA100 is 4 times as fast, right?

And of course those Pentiums I have sitting around out in other room for the collectors must be faster than my P4 at home, because the Pentiums are running 3.3-5V, and my P4 is only running 1.55V, and we all know that signal voltage is waht determines bandiwdth. man you're funny.

 

[jammydodger]

D00d you are such a fool, u have no idea what you are talking about. Electrons move at the speed of light no matter what the voltage is, data transfer speed is not dependant on voltage!

What exactly is the point of this post? To prove how little you know?

<font color=blue>P4c 2.6@3.25
512Mb PC4000
2x120Gb 7200.7 in RAID0
Waterchill KT12-L30
Abit AI7
Radeon 9800Pro
</font color=blue>

 

[blah]

He is just talking to himeself, no biggy, let the old kid be funny in his own little world

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...

 

[Tavelkyosoba]

so let me get this straight...more wires equals more bandwidth...so i should trade in all of my USB devices for COM devices because USB only has 4 wires and COM has like 15 right? hmmm...seems like we've fallen into a logic trap lol

now here's where i actually have a question to crashman or others; serial transfers faster than parallel because it uses more than one frequency per wire simultaneously, whereas parallel uses only one frequency per wire at a time...right???

 

[blah]

So, if you will not find it out will it make you sleep badly? Or.. if you will find out, will it make you eat better food? Or.. I think I'll pass on the last one, caz my life it too short for counting wires in a PC

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...

 

[joseangel]

Hey, everyone, just ignore him. Lets make this thread more usefull.

What I've read is that the transition from PATA to SATA was because of signal delay missmatch among the lines. That ¿skew? on signals prevented clock increase to speed up the bus. What I do not know is if interference also had anything to do with the change.

But here comes the question. Does it really help using SATA instead of PATA when high-end HD can only reach 80MB/sec? I mean, many manufacturers do not sell PATA133 because PATA100 is more than enough so, why would you use SATA150? Because of the command queueing that is not implemented yet?

I think buying SATA MOBO now is a waste of money because new chipsets with command queueing will show up soon. Buying now a SATA HD is a waste of money because of real transfer speed is under PATA100 capabilities.

Why is SATA150 becoming so popular then? 8o

 

[sjonnie]

It hardly hurts to have 150MB/s bandwidth available. Why wait for a hard disk to be manufactured that can transfer at 150MB/s and then find you don't have a bus that can transfer that fast?

SATA is the new standard that will replace ATA100. The reason to use it is because no manufacturer is going to develop new products based on PATA. SATA is the future whether you like it or not. SATA is incorporated into the ICH5/6 south bridge so it's inevitable that you will get SATA on an intel chipset motherboard. New drives are SATA by default these days so SATA isn't more expensive, it's the industry standard.

SATA is becoming popular because the industry has decided that is what we are going to buy. You can't buy PATA raptors. SATA does have other advantages, SATAII will have the possibility for external connectors (so you can connect your external hard disk by an external SATA connector), cabling can be 1m in length vs. PATA 18" and is naturally easier. And eventually we will get NCQ.

New technology is always popular. Just wait and see how popular PCI express will be.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/myanandtech.html?member=114979" target="_new">My PCs</A>

 

[joseangel]

You think NCQ could be just a firmware update? I am not sure if I read your words correctly, but that would be a very nice point. SATA150 will be "hardware" diferent of SATA300 but, does NCQ come in hardware or firmware?

BTW, that point on cable lenght is a very good one.

 

[jammydodger]

NCQ needs to be supported by both the drive and the SATA controller, but im not sure if it is implemented in hardware or firmware.

<font color=blue>P4c 2.6@3.25
512Mb PC4000
2x120Gb 7200.7 in RAID0
Waterchill KT12-L30
Abit AI7
Radeon 9800Pro
</font color=blue>

 

[sjonnie]

NCQ can be implemented in firmware or hardware. SATAI can have NCQ implemented in software if the hardware supports it. SATAII will have hardware NCQ support. Incidentally, IBM offered a kind of NCQ in their Deskstar drives for years which is why they used to outperform their competitors - until they started breaking of course

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/myanandtech.html?member=114979" target="_new">My PCs</A>

 

[jammydodger]

Ok Im using 2 seagate 7200.7's (which apparently support NCQ) controlled by the ICH5r. Do you reckon the ICH5R could have a firmware update made that would allow it to take advantage of NCQ?

Does NCQ make any difference to drives in a RAID array?

<font color=blue>P4c 2.6@3.25
512Mb PC4000
2x120Gb 7200.7 in RAID0
Waterchill KT12-L30
Abit AI7
Radeon 9800Pro
</font color=blue>

 

[sjonnie]

ICH6 (release June 21st) will offer support for NCQ. Queing makes a difference to any drive that gets multiple I/O requests.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/myanandtech.html?member=114979" target="_new">My PCs</A>

 

[camieabz]

...and to think I've been missing this for soooo long. Almost makes me want to start it all up again.

Are there still as many knobs in this place?

<b><font color=blue>~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=324&s=58e94ba84a16bedfebbf0f416d5bac48" target="_new">System Specs</A> ~<font color=blue></b>

 

[Crashman]

If I said the moon was made of green cheese, would you believe that ??

No, we'd believe that about as much as anything else you say, which is to say, not at all!

I own lots of SCSI hardware. It's nice. SCSI should have been the main standard for PC's instead of IDE. Then we'd all be moving to Fiber Channel years ago instead of SATA now.

SATA uses faster "baud rate", hehe, these drives are already transfering up to 101MB/s off the platters, which is the limit of the mechanics, not the electronics. U320 drives are just a hair faster than that sometimes. Of course U320 really CAN reach 320MB/s off one chain, but only when several drives on that chain are RAIDed.

We don't expect you to understand any of this because you're looking at it from a layman's point of view. SATA 150 doesn't offer huge performance increases over ATA133, but then again, the drives can't perform any better anyway. And by the time drives REALLY CAN do 150MB/s/drive, we'll already be looking at a new SATA standard, on the same slow cable!

Look at your network cables, 133MB/s (one gigabit per second) on the same Cat5E cable as the old 13MB/s cards used. That's 10x the performance on the same number of wires. Perhaps signalling technology is getting better without you noticing? Tom's has several benchmarks proving over 800mbit in both directions at once, over 1600mbit across the cable, which is 200MB/s...on Cat5E!

Firewire is what, 8 years old now? It uses 4 signal wires...at speeds up to 800megabit, which is 100MB/s.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>