1. You are viewing our forum as a guest. For full access please Register. WindowsBBS.com is completely free, paid for by advertisers and donations.

Hard Drives , SATA and SATA 2

Discussion in 'PC Hardware' started by TerryFox, 2008/06/21.

Page 2 of 2
  1. 2008/07/07
    chas berlin

    chas berlin Inactive

    Joined:
    2008/06/03
    Messages:
    1,578
    Likes Received:
    2
    I feel better knowing it's not as big a difference as I had thought. :)
    I'm now considering a 250 GB drive, that is slower than the 750 GB, for my OS.
    But again, I'm still in the throws of what to do, as this gets back to the partitions vs 2 drives question. :confused:
     
    chas berlin,
    #21
  2. 2008/07/07
    chas berlin

    chas berlin Inactive

    Joined:
    2008/06/03
    Messages:
    1,578
    Likes Received:
    2
    Pete, BTW, The 750 GB has a 32 MG cache and is SATA NCQ (don't know what this is), and the 250 GB has a 16 MG cache and is SATA 3.0 G/b's.
    From what you just said I assume there is little difference between the two?
    I expect the larger cache will produce the most gains though.
    Of course these will both be limited by my SATA 1 motherboard. :(

    Christer, thx for pointing out my error.
    I really wasn't reading it right, now was I? :eek:
     
    chas berlin,
    #22


  3. to hide this advert.

  4. 2008/07/07
    PeteC

    PeteC SuperGeek Staff

    Joined:
    2002/05/10
    Messages:
    28,896
    Likes Received:
    389
    SATA NCQ - Native Command Queuing - note it can actually slow the drive down due to increased latency.

    The most important software on a computer is the OS which is constantly in use once booted up. Although you are limited to SATA 1 in your board (check that the drive is backwards compatible - some have jumpers to set SATA 1) I would go for the increased cache as this is operational regardless of the interface. Are the spindle speeds both the same - faster is better for access, may be not so good for longevity :)
     
    PeteC,
    #23
  5. 2008/07/07
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    chas,
    I wasn't pointing any fingers, it was an honest question. SATA-3 (or whatever the professionals want us to call it) has been advertized but to the best of my knowledge, has not been released. I could be wrong, hence the question.

    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #24
  6. 2008/07/07
    chas berlin

    chas berlin Inactive

    Joined:
    2008/06/03
    Messages:
    1,578
    Likes Received:
    2
    Can this be turned off, so as not to slow things down?


    I don't have a clue about the compatibility.
    For the record, I used to build machines as a sideline, but when it comes to software and such, I'm pretty lame.
    The drives are both 7200. I can't find anything that says yea or nay.
    Here's a link http://www.seagate.com/ww/v/index.j...0f43110VgnVCM100000f5ee0a0aRCRD&reqPage=Model
    can you tell if it's backward compatible?
     
    chas berlin,
    #25
  7. 2008/07/07
    chas berlin

    chas berlin Inactive

    Joined:
    2008/06/03
    Messages:
    1,578
    Likes Received:
    2
    Christer, I didn't take it as anything more than an sincere question.
    Since I'm not knowledgeable, or up to date, in this arena I could easily be wrong.
     
    chas berlin,
    #26
  8. 2008/07/08
    PeteC

    PeteC SuperGeek Staff

    Joined:
    2002/05/10
    Messages:
    28,896
    Likes Received:
    389
    From the Support > Installation tab in the URL ypu posted ....
    Re. NCQ I don't know, but we are talking milliseconds here.
     
    PeteC,
    #27
  9. 2008/07/08
    chas berlin

    chas berlin Inactive

    Joined:
    2008/06/03
    Messages:
    1,578
    Likes Received:
    2
    OK, here it comes...
    I assume I want to force SATA 150MB/s? :confused:
    OK it was obvious but, lower your gun, pls.
    Ooops, I forgot you're not American, so you're not carrying one!
     
    chas berlin,
    #28
  10. 2008/07/08
    chas berlin

    chas berlin Inactive

    Joined:
    2008/06/03
    Messages:
    1,578
    Likes Received:
    2
    Pete, I just looked at the tab you referenced.
    I had no idea it had info on it. Thought it was just a support number. :eek:
     
    chas berlin,
    #29
  11. 2008/07/08
    Rockster2U

    Rockster2U Geek Member

    Joined:
    2002/04/01
    Messages:
    3,181
    Likes Received:
    9
    A couple of comments.

    Yes, there are distinct differences between PATA, SATA I and SATA II drives - look at all the previous posts and the way speed can be quantified. However, it's time for a reality check. Assuming similar platter speeds and caches, most of us would be very hard pressed to recognize any differences in speed or performance between them unless benchmarking software is used.

    Yes, SATA II drives are supposed to be backwards compatable to SATA I. As has been stated, some SATA II drives can be jumpered to force SATA I. However, not all SATA I motherboards will recognize a SATA II drive. I hope this issue is behind us in 2008 but just for the record, there are exceptions.

    ;)
     
    Rockster2U,
    #30
  12. 2008/07/08
    chas berlin

    chas berlin Inactive

    Joined:
    2008/06/03
    Messages:
    1,578
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yeow!
    Now you're scaring me. :eek:

    I guess I'll find out tomorrow.
     
    chas berlin,
    #31
Page 2 of 2

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...