SATA vs ATA133?

[sep]

A co-worker of mine has questioned the real gain to purchase SATA vs ATA133 or even ATA100 if one was building a new power user/gaming rig. The point he's trying to make is that if you take a ATA133 drive and compare it to a SATA with the same guts (nothing really changes in the drives except the interface) you don't see a performance gain. I haven't found anything to agree or disagree with that statement.

Please give me your feedback or if you know where I can read more.

Thanks,
-JC

 

[LED]

If he means just adding an adapter to 1 PATA HD then he's prolly right although less CPU usage may still be taxed...Both of the 2 different interfaces are limited by the PCI Bus (xcept Intels newest chipset which still has to be proven) so neither can run @ full max. OTOH if he finds a PATA HD that will beat a SATA WD Rapter please LMK.

 

[sep]

oh no...that would not be fair. He's basically saying that if you take a Maxtor 120GB 7200RPM 8MB Cache drive that is ATA133 and the other one that is SATA you wouldn't see a difference.

 

[Alphanos]

Your co-worker is correct, there will be small (if any) performance gains resulting from switching to SATA. However, there are other advantages that made me choose SATA:
-not stressing PCI bus (in Canterwood anyway)
-smaller cables for better airflow
-the new standard that will be used in machines several years down the road (making the drives more reusable in new systems)

 

[User1001]

I agree, I wouldn't go replacing your current drive. But if you ever get a new system I'd go for SATA

 

[LED]

Originally posted by: sep
oh no...that would not be fair. He's basically saying that if you take a Maxtor 120GB 7200RPM 8MB Cache drive that is ATA133 and the other one that is SATA you wouldn't see a difference.

In that Case the PATA drive may even be a touch faster because the SATA drive would have a conversion chip like Marvell involved and doye to choking of Bandwith in PCI limitations, even an ATA66 could run as fast as a 133 given the platters and rest were the same....and as User1001 stated

I wouldn't go replacing your current drive.

...given the drive swap would be the same less SATA