EggXpert

Which is better? SATA hard drive or IDE hard drive?

Better = SATA > faster

Old and Tired = IDE > slower

come on man. If you have read an article about it it would have said SATA is replacing IDE, or PATA/ATA

The only reason EVER to buy an IDE hard drive is because you don't have SATA compatibility.  IDE is slow, cumbersome (cables are huge), and awkward (cable slect is a mess since masters like HDs are usually closer to the port than slaves).  Sata cables are thin and light, they bend and maneuver easily, and they transfer data a hell of a lot faster. If you have an IDE slot save it for data transferring from old hard drives or running an optical drive.

Sata 2 = 3 GB/s

Sata 1 = 1.5 GB/s

IDE = Who cares...its slow..

 

Even when running an optical drive most new ones will run off sata.

SATA all the way.

Way faster and they are not even more expensive.

 

you should go with the newer technology (SATA) as a general rule. 

In this case the point is moot until the subsystems can deal with the data faster than they do now.

saying that SATA 2 = 3Gb/s and SATA 1 = 1.5Gb/s is silly as those speeds are only achieved when talking to it's controller.

Data throughput is 150MB/s and 300MB/s (theoretical as mentioned above PC's cannot handle the data that fast yet.)

Tallon41

thanks! i wrote this because i need more space on my old a** laptop (a dell inspiron 6000 from 2005) and it is only ATA HD. so my plan is to buy an external HD. but now i am wondering, should i buy usb external HD, or an external enclosure and a SATA HD? or am i just retarded? (rhetorical question) thanks again guys!

USB 2.0 =  480Mbs  / 8 (bits per byte) = 60MB/s

ATA100 =  100MBs

SATA150 = 150MBs, and SATA300 is about the same effective speed given the systems limits presently.

 
So as you can see, the limiting factor with your external drive is that USB 2.0 connection.

You can get whichever one you want, but it will only transfer 60MBs max.

This is why External SATA (SATAe) is cool if your MBoard supports it.  If it DOES, then you'd want to get a SATA300 to get the most out of the drive.

Tallon41
 

after reading "The Hard Drive As A Bottleneck"

 it seems that the bottleneck is the HD itself, the average read and write time is not over 80MB/S, so the interface is not the bottleneck, although it seems that usb 2.0 is slower.

so for an external hard drive, not much difference between sata or ide interface.  

intelguy:

it seems that the bottleneck is the HD itself, the average read and write time is not over 80MB/S, so the interface is not the bottleneck,

well THAT's wrong.  Look at the speeds again in my post.

intelguy:

although it seems that usb 2.0 is slower.

Oh, OK, then you DID read it.....and now you see WHY using the USB 2.0 interface (or 1394-A,) would be the bottleneck.

intelguy:

so for an external hard drive, not much difference between sata or ide interface.

err....not quite correct.  An external Hard drive has 2 interfaces, an internal and external interface. 

An IDE or SATA INTERNAL interface will not have much difference using the EXTERNAL USB or Firewire-A standards 

However if using SATAe as the EXTERNAL interface, then you'll want to use a SATA INTERNAL interfaced HD, and THEN the HD will be the bottleneck.  Using an IDE INTERNAL on the SATAe interface would likely result in the HD bottleneck as well, though not guaranteed.

Tallon41 

 

So if i'm trying to decide on a 10000 RPM sata 1.5 Gb/s drive or a 10000 RPM 3.0 gb/s drive that is twice as much, it sounds like you are saying that the higher transfer rate is worthless currently, due to other system limitations. IE, i should save my $$ and buy the 1.5 Gb/s drive. Do i understand you right?

dizizcamron:

So if i'm trying to decide on a 10000 RPM sata 1.5 Gb/s drive or a 10000 RPM 3.0 gb/s drive that is twice as much, it sounds like you are saying that the higher transfer rate is worthless currently, due to other system limitations. IE, i should save my $$ and buy the 1.5 Gb/s drive. Do i understand you right?

Unless you are using port multiplying and putting 4 drives in a RAID0, you will not saturate the 150MB pipe (i.e. 1.5Gb). What this means is a single SATA cable would have to have four drives attached to it to get near the ceiling of 150MB/s. Drives these days can't generate enough IO to need 300MB/s link. That's not to say there isn't other advantages to the 300MB technology but from a thoughput standpoint, it isn't a factor.

Remember, you are only as fast as your slowest part.

root:

Remember, you are only as fast as your slowest part.

 so you're saying I need to upgrade my fingers too?
 

dizizcamron:

root:

Remember, you are only as fast as your slowest part.

 so you're saying I need to upgrade my fingers too?
 

Yes. Most people go with the freddy hands. 

 

 

 

You would be insane to buy a 10000 rpm raptor to stick in a usb enclosure. You are paying a huge premium for a drive thats still going to run slow because of the usb connection. You would be much better off saving the extra money or spending the same amount on a much larger drive that will still perform the same because it is bottlenecked by the usb connection.

josh48315:

...need more space on my old a** laptop...

If it's just for mass storage over USB, shop around and find one of a sufficient size that has the best price per gigabyte.  If that's PATA, oh well, it'll do.  If it's SATA, great.  Keep in mind that external USB enclosures are usually about $10-15.