Questions about SATA Hard Drive w NCQ

[Guest]

I'm considering purchasing a Seagate 160GB Barracuda 7200.7 7200RPM SATA II with NCQ Hard Drive
from newegg.com. This is model ST3160827AS.

BTW my processor is an Intel Pentium 4 at 2000 MHz
My machine does not support hyperthreading.

1st question:
Does a hard drive which supports NCQ as compared to one which does not support NCQ
serve any advantage when used with a machine which does not support hyperthreading?

Other questions:
My motherboard does not have an interface for a Serial ATA hard drive.
AFAIK in order to use a SATA drive, I have two options:


Option A: Purchase a PCI controller card that I can connect the SATA drive to.
PCI is limited to 133 per sec right? Does this mean that this configuration
is no better using a IDE PATA 133 drive plugged directly into the motherboard?

Option B: Convert SATA port on the hard drive to PATA and use standard 40 pin IDE cable to
connect drive directly to motherboard. If I do this, is the transfer rate still limited
to 133 mb/sec even though the drive supports up to 150 mb/sec?

Lastly, which option is better or do they both basically suck?


Thanks.

 

[Eric Gisin]

Your only options for desktop NCQ support is an Intel 9XX chipset board. There
is also the SiI 3124 controller, which you probably can't buy (after a year).

You don't need multi-processing for NCQ, but simple desktop apps don't benefit
in any case.

 

[Chuck U. Farley]

1st question:

Does a hard drive which supports NCQ as compared to one which does not support NCQ
serve any advantage when used with a machine which does not support

hyperthreading?

Not sure about the hyperthreading part but go to storagereview.com and check
out their Performance Database. In the High-End Drivemark 2000, the one w/o
NCQ performs more I/O's per second than the one with it. Not sure if that's
really significant in real world usage.

Other questions:
My motherboard does not have an interface for a Serial ATA hard drive.
AFAIK in order to use a SATA drive, I have two options:

I'm not sure about now but 6-8 months ago almost all of the SATA drives
basically used a bridge from an ATA controller so there was no speed
advantage at all with SATA vs. ATA. And most of the SATA drives were more
expensive as well. Things may have changed since then but I doubt you are
going to notice a performance increase unless your current drive is pretty
slow.

Option A: Purchase a PCI controller card that I can connect the SATA drive to.
PCI is limited to 133 per sec right? Does this mean that this configuration
is no better using a IDE PATA 133 drive plugged directly into the motherboard?

Option B: Convert SATA port on the hard drive to PATA and use standard 40 pin IDE cable to
connect drive directly to motherboard. If I do this, is the transfer rate still limited
to 133 mb/sec even though the drive supports up to 150 mb/sec?

Lastly, which option is better or do they both basically suck?

I'd just get a Western Digital 250 gig 2500JB for around $80 after rebate.
It's an ATA drive that's still in the top 20 speedwise and is faster than
most SATA drives, including the Seagate you're considering.

 

[J. Clarke]

I'm considering purchasing a Seagate 160GB Barracuda 7200.7 7200RPM SATA
II with NCQ Hard Drive
from newegg.com. This is model ST3160827AS.

BTW my processor is an Intel Pentium 4 at 2000 MHz
My machine does not support hyperthreading.

1st question:
Does a hard drive which supports NCQ as compared to one which does not
support NCQ serve any advantage when used with a machine which does not
support hyperthreading?

The question is not whether the machine supports hyperthreading but whether
it supports NCQ, and this is a feature of the host adapter--since you say
that your machine doesn't have SATA built in you'll have to add a host
adapter to get any use out of it.

Other questions:
My motherboard does not have an interface for a Serial ATA hard drive.
AFAIK in order to use a SATA drive, I have two options:


Option A: Purchase a PCI controller card that I can connect the SATA drive
to.
PCI is limited to 133 per sec right? Does this mean that this
configuration is no better using a IDE PATA 133 drive plugged directly
into the motherboard?

You get the advantages of SATA--longer cables, hot swap, and so on (assuming
you get the right host adapter). But no drive on the market can fill a 133
MB/sec pipe, so the interface speed is pretty much irrelevant.

Option B: Convert SATA port on the hard drive to PATA and use standard 40
pin IDE cable to
connect drive directly to motherboard. If I do this, is the transfer rate
still limited to 133 mb/sec even though the drive supports up to 150
mb/sec?

Actually, it's restricted to approximately 85 MB/sec by the physical
properties of the disk platters and mechanism.

Lastly, which option is better or do they both basically suck?

The separate host adapter is going to be the most satisfactory solution IMO.
The Promise SATAII150TX4 will support NCQ and can run at 66 MHz if your
machine supports 66 MHz PCI, giving a PCI transfer rate of 266 MB/sec. It
will also work in a regular PCI slot but it runs at ordinary PCI speeds in
that case. It does not appear to support hot-swapping however--for that
you'd have to go to the FastTrack TX4200 I believe.

 

[J. Clarke]

hyperthreading?

Not sure about the hyperthreading part but go to storagereview.com and
check out their Performance Database. In the High-End Drivemark 2000, the
one w/o NCQ performs more I/O's per second than the one with it. Not sure
if that's really significant in real world usage.


I'm not sure about now but 6-8 months ago almost all of the SATA drives
basically used a bridge from an ATA controller so there was no speed
advantage at all with SATA vs. ATA.

_Almost_ all. Seagate never used a bridge chip. And he's looking at a
Seagate drive. Not that it matters--the transfer rate is limited by the
physical properties of the disks and heads, not by the interface.

 

[Bob Willard]

I'm considering purchasing a Seagate 160GB Barracuda 7200.7 7200RPM SATA II with NCQ Hard Drive
from newegg.com. This is model ST3160827AS.

BTW my processor is an Intel Pentium 4 at 2000 MHz
My machine does not support hyperthreading.

1st question:
Does a hard drive which supports NCQ as compared to one which does not support NCQ
serve any advantage when used with a machine which does not support hyperthreading?

Other questions:
My motherboard does not have an interface for a Serial ATA hard drive.
AFAIK in order to use a SATA drive, I have two options:


Option A: Purchase a PCI controller card that I can connect the SATA drive to.
PCI is limited to 133 per sec right? Does this mean that this configuration
is no better using a IDE PATA 133 drive plugged directly into the motherboard?

Option B: Convert SATA port on the hard drive to PATA and use standard 40 pin IDE cable to
connect drive directly to motherboard. If I do this, is the transfer rate still limited
to 133 mb/sec even though the drive supports up to 150 mb/sec?

Lastly, which option is better or do they both basically suck?


Thanks.

There is no relationship between HT and NCQ. Totally independent.

Either way of connecting a SATA HD will work OK. And neither PCI
nor PATA will bottleneck any existing SATA HD, since they all have
STRs of <80 MB/s.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

There is no relationship between HT and NCQ.

No? Care to explain?
Must be a reason why he specifically asked about this, right?

Totally independent.

Either way of connecting a SATA HD will work OK. And neither PCI
nor PATA will bottleneck any existing SATA HD, since they all have
STRs of <80 MB/s.

Ever noticed how you can connect more than a single drive to a MoBo?

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Not sure about the hyperthreading part but go to storagereview.com and check
out their Performance Database. In the High-End Drivemark 2000, the one w/o
NCQ performs more I/O's per second than the one with it.

What drive was that?
'I/O's per second' is basically latency related: rpm, seek time etc.
No point in comparison unless of the same or similar type.

Not sure if that's really significant in real world usage.


I'm not sure about now but 6-8 months ago almost all of the SATA drives
basically used a bridge from an ATA controller so there was no speed
advantage at all with SATA vs. ATA.

Speed difference (STR) is purely defined by rpm and data density.
Has nothing to do with parallel or serial.

And most of the SATA drives were more expensive as well.
Things may have changed since then but I doubt you are going to
notice a performance increase unless your current drive is pretty slow.

Probably even worse if the 'directly into the motherboard' chipset is
not limited by PCI at all. But then only for applications that need more
bandwidth than PCI provides such as RAID and pure sequential access.

Yup. Not that that is of any significance.

Of course. Not that any drive 'supports up to 150 MB/s'. Nor '133 MB/s'.

 

[Chuck U. Farley]

Not sure about the hyperthreading part but go to storagereview.com and
check

What drive was that?
'I/O's per second' is basically latency related: rpm, seek time etc.
No point in comparison unless of the same or similar type.

Guess you didn't go to the site. It compares about 80 different drives of
similar as well as dissimilar types. The High End Drive Mark is:

A capture of VeriTest's Content Creation Winstone 2001 suite. Applications
include Adobe Photoshop v5.5, Adobe Premiere v5.1, Macromedia Director v8.0,
Macromedia Dreamweaver v3.0, Netscape Navigator v4.73, and Sonic Foundry
Sound Forge v4.5. Unlike typical productivity applications, high-end audio-
and video- editing programs are run in a more serial and less multitasked
manner. The High-End DriveMark includes significantly more sequential
transfers and write (as opposed to read) operations.

There's more here:

http://www.storagereview.com/comparison.html

 

[Tod]

Currently both ATA-100/133 and SATA-150 transfer at the same speed.
In real world terms, 55-65MBs.
Currently ATA drives are better price per GBs of storage.
So if you are planning on keeping your current motherboard for awhile, go
for the ATA.

The SATA will have the advantage as SATA will be replacing ATA as the main
storage controller
built into motherboards (ATA will fade away)
In the future SATA will be increase interface speeds from the current 150 to
300,
then to 600
But you will need to buy the new hard drive and interface (or motherboard)
to take advantage of the speed increase
And SATA drives should be much cheaper (per GB of storage) by then.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Guess you didn't go to the site.

Guess I didn't. Guess you didn't read what I said.

It compares about 80 different drives of similar as well as dissimilar types.

Right, and you said 'one'. So I wanted to know which 'one'.
If there is more than 'one', then I wanted to know which were the 'ones'
that are otherwise completely 'similar' except for NCQ, that you compared.
Comparing a slower drive with NCQ with a faster drive without it is not on
if you want to see an effect- better or worse- of NCQ. NCQ usually only
comes into effect if you saturate the IO and a queue actually builds.

So, which one (or two)?

The High End Drive Mark is:

A capture of VeriTest's Content Creation Winstone 2001 suite. Applications
include Adobe Photoshop v5.5, Adobe Premiere v5.1, Macromedia Director v8.0,
Macromedia Dreamweaver v3.0, Netscape Navigator v4.73, and Sonic Foundry
Sound Forge v4.5. Unlike typical productivity applications, high-end audio-
and video- editing programs are run in a more serial and less multitasked
manner. The High-End DriveMark includes significantly more sequential
transfers and write (as opposed to read) operations.

There's more here:

http://www.storagereview.com/comparison.html

You can only compare drives that have the exact same Access Time and
STR when comparing drives for the effect of with and without NCQ.

 

[Chuck U. Farley]

What drive was that?

Guess I didn't. Guess you didn't read what I said.

It's hard to communicate with someone who wants to be spoon-fed information
and can't/won't follow a link.

types.

Right, and you said 'one'. So I wanted to know which 'one'.

I guess you have trouble following a thread as well as a link. From the op's
post:

"I'm considering purchasing a Seagate 160GB Barracuda 7200.7 7200RPM SATA II
with NCQ Hard Drive
from newegg.com. This is model ST3160827AS.

1st question:
Does a hard drive which supports NCQ as compared to one which does not
support NCQ
serve any advantage when used with a machine which does not support
hyperthreading?"

So the "one" would be a Seagate ST3160827AS, which, guess what, comes in NCP
_and_ non-NCQ varieties. So they're comparing exactly the drive the op
inquired about, in both versions, which answers his 1st question.

If there is more than 'one', then I wanted to know which were the 'ones'
that are otherwise completely 'similar' except for NCQ, that you compared.

I didn't compare 'em, storagereview.com did. Of course you would have
discovered that if you had went to the site.

Comparing a slower drive with NCQ with a faster drive without it is not on
if you want to see an effect- better or worse- of NCQ. NCQ usually only
comes into effect if you saturate the IO and a queue actually builds.

So, which one (or two)?

[email protected]

Oh wait, if you can't follow a weblink, you'll never figure out a MID.

You can only compare drives that have the exact same Access Time and
STR when comparing drives for the effect of with and without NCQ.

Well, guess what? That's exactly what the _comparison_ I linked to did. Of
course, going to link and figuring it out yourself would've been asking too
much now, wouldn't it?

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

It's hard to communicate with someone who wants to be spoon-fed information
and can't/won't follow a link.

Not at all.
Just point out to him/her that your answer was in response to the part that you
snipped instead of the part that you didn't snip but appeared to answer to.

I read the question and interpreted the answer in the context of that question,
not the part that you snipped. I don't go back to a previous post because some
dyslexic idiot finds it necessary to conserve a hundred bytes or so and then finds
it necessary to answer exactly to the part that he snipped while ignoring the part
that he answers to. What idiot snips the part that his answer is supposed to cover?

I guess you have trouble following a thread as well as a link. From the op's
post:

"I'm considering purchasing a Seagate 160GB Barracuda 7200.7 7200RPM SATA II
with NCQ Hard Drive from newegg.com. This is model ST3160827AS.

So what, you removed that from your context and answered to the OP's question instead
where he also moved away in a general direction.
When snipping your supposed scope and then answering to a question whith a more general
scope your answer gets interpreted toward that general scope, not the one you snipped.

1st question:
Does a hard drive which supports NCQ as compared to one which does not
support NCQ
serve any advantage when used with a machine which does not support
hyperthreading?"

So the "one" would be a Seagate ST3160827AS, which,

guess what,

You have no idea how accurate that wording might actually be, don't you.

comes in NCP _and_ non-NCQ varieties.

Uhuh, and where exactly does it say that?
When you look at it carefully, indications are that it is the exact
same drive, once tested with and once tested without NCQ active.

So they're comparing exactly the drive the op
inquired about, in both versions,

That's what *you* make of it, based on "*guess* what".

which answers his 1st question.

Right, that wasn't so hard, now was it.
If you had said that the first time we wouldn't have had this confusion.
But then that is exactly what you were hoping for, isn't it.

I didn't compare 'em, storagereview.com did. Of course you would have
discovered that if you had went to the site.

I don't usually go on wild goose chases, submitting myself to the SR
Spybots, having to stay online because the stupid page won't save, having
to go back to the older messages in the thread to find out what selection to
make because poster was too lazy to present an *accurate* link and then
go looking for things supposedly there but that in all likely hood aren't.
Well, excuse me for not biting.

[email protected]

Oh wait, if you can't follow a weblink, you'll never figure out a MID.

Thanks for making no bones about it that you are just a stupid Troll.
And in OE that is an email address, oh clueless troll, which you know
very well since you are using it yourself.

Well, guess what? That's exactly what the _comparison_ I linked to did.

And anyone that clicks that link can see that is a blatant lie, in several respects.

Of course, going to link and figuring it out yourself would've been

asking too much

You finally got it.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Not sure about the hyperthreading part but go to storagereview.com and check
out their Performance Database. In the High-End Drivemark 2000, the one w/o
NCQ performs more I/O's per second than the one with it.

In the desktop suites. It's almost the complete reverse for the server suite.

Not sure if that's really significant in real world usage.

Well, that depends on what one's 'real world usage' (Desktop, Server,
business, pleasure) type really is, isn't it. And benchmark suites -as
opposed to the simple benchmarks- are supposed to mimic the real word.
Also, 'significant' can be a stretchable notion depending on what your goal is.

I'm not sure about now but 6-8 months ago almost all of the SATA drives
basically used a bridge from an ATA controller so there was no speed
advantage at all with SATA vs. ATA.

Which obviously has nothing to do with that "bridge from an ATA controller".
If the (Serial) ATA controller has a bridge then obviously it doesn't
matter at all whether the drive has one too or that it is native SATA.

 

[Chuck U. Farley]

Of course, going to link and figuring it out yourself would've been

You finally got it.

Nah, I didn't get it until I checked your posting history in here, now I
know better than to respond to you.

See ya!

 

[Eric Gisin]

hyperthreading?

Not sure about the hyperthreading part but go to storagereview.com and check
out their Performance Database. In the High-End Drivemark 2000, the one w/o
NCQ performs more I/O's per second than the one with it. Not sure if that's
really significant in real world usage.

There are two drives with NCQ reviewed, the MaxLine III and the Barracuda
7200.7. The MaxLine performs better with NCQ in all tests. The Barracuda
performs better without NCQ, but only for desktop benchmarks.

Of course the IDE controller and driver will affect NCQ performance too, and
nobody has benchmarked the various SATA2 controllers properly.