re: Asus A7V8X and Serial ATA

[Foehammer]

I would like to buy the Asus A7V8X for my new system that I will soon build for many reasons, among them that I THINK it supports Serial ATA (claimed as being "optional" on Asus' webpage). Seagate has just released an 80 gb Serial ATA hdd, the Barracuda Serial ATA V, which I would like to use with the system.


There are TWO versions of the Asus A7V8X...the A7V8X-A and the A7V8X-RAID. I am certain the RAID version will be able to utilize the full power of the Seagate, though I'm not sure if I can run it as my basic,primary hdd or if I have to run it somehow regarding RAID (and I know nothing about RAID, nor do I need it). I am not sure if the A7V8X-A version will support the Seagate...at all!


My question is; which board do I need to run the Seagate at its full Serial ATA-150 power, the A7V8X-A or the RAID?



Foehammer

 

[halkebul]

It would be better to go with the Western Digital Special Edition Hard Drives at this point. Serial ATA came too early - limited by current PCI.

<i>It's your world kid!!!</i>

 

[Rynthar]

100% agree. Not only did serial ATA come out too early, its not THAT great (it should be, but it aint) compared to whats out right now. Also, I think S-ATA is prolly good for RAID, but thats just an opinion and a guess, so i could be wrong.

 

[mwgorecki]

No hard drive will reach the ATA-150 capability. Even ATA133 drives don't use the 133 limit. The Asus A7N8X has SATA built-in and will support RAID. SATA cables are nice and long, too.


sz

 

[cxl6909]

I got A7V8X the top model: Raid/Serial/Giga Land/Audio
after build up with amdxp 2000+ and used it for 2 days then sold it back as used product on local computer store.

THG recommand it so I bought to test by myself. Pretty shocked A7V8X was slower than my GA-7vrxp amdxp 2000 and MSI-k7dL server board dual amdmpx2000. Despite of thatthe board layout is bad and performace was slow, but got nice feature on it. I suggest you go with other KT-400 mainboards, such as ;MSI or Abit would be a nice choice.

 

[Foehammer]

How is SATA limited by current PCI? Given that an Ultra ATA 133 wont get near to its supposed max transfer rate, isnt Serial ATA supposed to surpass these limits, or at least be substantially better in approaching them?

 

[Foehammer]

About the board you used...did it have the latest bios update? ExtremeTech did a review of the board as well and said it was a nice board but slower. THG's test said it was faster. THG may have had a bios update or something that you didnt install.


And about Gigabyte boards...a friend of mine has had good success with them and another just had hell with one. He couldnt get the damn thing to work no matter what he did, and he sent in for a replacement and the replacement didnt work! He's using a Soyo now.

 

[snotling]

When you read that ATA-133 is not used at it's full potential it's because the HDs can't spit out the data fast enough for a sustained period. the "133" stands for 133MB/sec. it only works in burst modes. from the buffer to the controler. This is also the maximum transfer rate of a standard PCI bus (on witch your ATA controler is located)

but the speed at witch the HD can actualy sustain it's transfer rate is around 50-60MB/sec (only an aproximation, please don't start aguing that this drive or that drive is better or worst)

so it can't FILL the bandwith of either the ATA-100 or 133 controler.

Cereal(serial) ATA or SATA-150 has a max Bandwith of 150MB/sec. That is Higher than the PCI bus so the benefits of this interface are verry few unless you have a faster PCIbus (64Bit PCI or the upcomming PCI-X-press)

Hard drives as we know them will become faster in the future and it is a good thing that we can get rid of those ribbon cables. but for a while All parrallel or Serial ATA drives will be created Equal And both Controlers will be Equal unless you have a faster PCI bus.

find yourselves a fast spinning drive with a Large Buffer that runs cool and silent. don't worry too much about Serial or Parallel ATA