MB question (UDMA)

[aniv3]

I've seen that as of right now there are no chipsets that support UDMA 133 4 the p4 (except the new SIS 648 chipset, but MB's with it r currently quite rare over here)... they only support UDMA 100.
I was wondering what is the difference between UDMA 100 and UDMA 133 in terms of overall system performance?
and if I'm gonna buy me a new MB 4 P4 is it worth waitin 4 a board that supports UDMA 133 or is UDMA 100 good enough?

 

[o1die]

UDMA 133 isn't noticably faster than udma 100. Other factors limit the transfer rate of data. I couldn't tell the difference between the two. The western digital with 8 megs of cache offers a noticable performance improvement for about the same price as the 2 meg cache hardrives.

 

[aniv3]

By sayin "other factors" what exaclty do u mean? give me some info bout that if u can...

I have a WDC 80 GB with 8 megs of cache and it supports UDMA 133 but my board is runnin at UDMA 100, suppose I'll buy an IDE controller 2 make it UDMA 133, will I notice any difference?

 

[Crashman]

If you're VERY LUCKY you have a hard drive with a 45MB/s transfer rate. Even if you use two of them on a RAID controller, you'll still never see them reach the limit of UDMA100, except for one brief instant, the instant that the Cache memory on the drive is dumped. So giving the drive 33MB/s more bandwidth for just that instant is not going to give you noticable gains.

The 8MB cache WD drives are UDMA100, so if you use them, you're still limited to 100MB/s even for cache dumps because the drive is made to that standard.

<font color=blue>By now you're probably wishing you had ask more questions first!</font color=blue>

 

[aniv3]

4 the record my WD drive is UDMA 133 capable...
I was just curious 2 know if purchasing an IDE controller will make a noticeable difference in the overall system performances...

 

[Stain]

Western Digital does not make UDMA133 drives so if you do have a <A HREF="http://www.westerndigital.com/products/products.asp?DriveID=32" target="_new">WD800JB</A> then it's only UDMA100 not that it would make any difference in performance so why am I even wasting my time...(!)