OT: P4 Mobo + ATA133

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jacky Luk
  • Start date Start date
J

Jacky Luk

Most the mobo I've seen so far such as Intel's are only UDMA100 or ATA100.
Are there any good mobo that supports both P4 (800Mhz) and ATA133 or
UDMA133? Thanks
Jack
 
But Taiwanese ASUSTek and 2theMax, nearly most of the models are UDMA100.
Unless you are dealing with SATA or AMD, you can't get any better than
that?? Or maybe??
Thanks
Jack
 
Jacky Luk said:
But Taiwanese ASUSTek and 2theMax, nearly most of the models are UDMA100.
Unless you are dealing with SATA or AMD, you can't get any better than
that?? Or maybe??
Thanks
Jack
Click to expand...

None of the Intel chipsets support ATA/133, basically because it was judged
by Intel to not offer much in the way of real-world improvement; plus, it's
really stretching the limits of what can be pushed over a parallel cable,
speed-wise. Also, at the time that ATA/133 was being pushed by Maxtor (and
basically, them alone) Intel's efforts were going into Serial/ATA. First
generation SATA has bandwidth of 150Mbit/s, but that's not really important
because most current hard drives will rarely if ever get close to saturating
the ATA/100 bus, let alone the 50% faster SATA one. The real improvement of
SATA is mechanical - the cables are much thinner, improving chassis airflow
and cooling, and they're easier to connect/remove. Certain variants of the
Intel 865, 875 and 915/925 chipsets also implement the Native Command
Queuing feature, which is part of the SATA2 spec, and actually does improve
performance when used with compatible drives.
Anyway, I digress - back to your original question! There are third-party
chipsets that support ATA/133 - I'll guess Via or SiS - but I really don't
think you'll see any material difference with ATA/133 vs. ATA/100. If you're
asking because you already have an ATA/133 drive that you want to use..
well, be aware that all ATA/133 drives will also run in ATA/100 mode. If you
don't have any drives yet, my advice is to go for SATA instead - you may not
necessarily see any performance improvement over ATA (100/133) but you'll
benefit from the other advantages I described above.

Hope this helps..
 
David said:
None of the Intel chipsets support ATA/133, basically because it was judged
by Intel to not offer much in the way of real-world improvement; plus, it's
really stretching the limits of what can be pushed over a parallel cable,
speed-wise. Also, at the time that ATA/133 was being pushed by Maxtor (and
basically, them alone) Intel's efforts were going into Serial/ATA. First
generation SATA has bandwidth of 150Mbit/s, but that's not really important
because most current hard drives will rarely if ever get close to saturating
the ATA/100 bus, let alone the 50% faster SATA one. The real improvement of
SATA is mechanical - the cables are much thinner, improving chassis airflow
and cooling, and they're easier to connect/remove. Certain variants of the
Intel 865, 875 and 915/925 chipsets also implement the Native Command
Queuing feature, which is part of the SATA2 spec, and actually does improve
performance when used with compatible drives.
Anyway, I digress - back to your original question! There are third-party
chipsets that support ATA/133 - I'll guess Via or SiS - but I really don't
think you'll see any material difference with ATA/133 vs. ATA/100. If you're
asking because you already have an ATA/133 drive that you want to use..
well, be aware that all ATA/133 drives will also run in ATA/100 mode. If you
don't have any drives yet, my advice is to go for SATA instead - you may not
necessarily see any performance improvement over ATA (100/133) but you'll
benefit from the other advantages I described above.

Hope this helps..
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that except for one error: 1st gen. SATA is 150 MByte/s,
not 150 Mbit/s; i.e., 150 MB/s not 150 Mb/s.
 
Bob Willard said:
I agree with all of that except for one error: 1st gen. SATA is 150
MByte/s,
not 150 Mbit/s; i.e., 150 MB/s not 150 Mb/s.
Click to expand...

Ouch, you're right of course - I originally wrote "1.5Gbit/s", then realised
that would lead to having to explain what "10-bit signalling" is, simplified
my answer to Bytes, but didn't change the unit. D'oh!
 
Back
Top