PATA vs SATA - Same model, same performance???

[Noozer]

I've got a failing 40gig drive so I'm looking to purchase a new drive and
shuffle my collection of drives around.

I'd just pick up a reasonable sized SATA drive, except that the new drive
may just end up in a USB enclosure. This means that I'd need a PATA drive.

When considering the same drive in PATA vs SATA, is there a performance
difference?

Seagate 320GB Barracuda 7200.10 ATA w/ 16MB Cache vs. Seagate 320GB
Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II w/ NCQ, 16MB Cache ...same price on each - $110
(Cdn)

I don't see any PATA drives in the drive reference, so I can't tell if there
really is a benefit from SATA.

What do y'all think?


P.s. I can get a 500g Maxtor Maxline Pro for $160 (Cdn)... REALLY nice
price, but it's SATA only.

 

[Cal Vanize]

I've got a failing 40gig drive so I'm looking to purchase a new drive and
shuffle my collection of drives around.

I'd just pick up a reasonable sized SATA drive, except that the new drive
may just end up in a USB enclosure. This means that I'd need a PATA drive.

When considering the same drive in PATA vs SATA, is there a performance
difference?

No. The interface performance does not make any difference in drive
performance. Driver performance is, at VERY best 60% of PATA and about
35% of SATA.

Tom's Hardware cites several PATA drives that slightly outperform their
SATA versions.

Seagate 320GB Barracuda 7200.10 ATA w/ 16MB Cache vs. Seagate 320GB
Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II w/ NCQ, 16MB Cache ...same price on each - $110
(Cdn)

I don't see any PATA drives in the drive reference, so I can't tell if there
really is a benefit from SATA.

What do y'all think?

I've never had any problems with WD 320GB drives in either the SATA or
PATA versions.

That said, it depends on your motherboard and how soon you intend to
upgrade to a new system. Some motherboards are limited in the number of
PATA devices they support.

 

[www.interfacebus.com]

I've got a failing 40gig drive so I'm looking to purchase a new drive and
shuffle my collection of drives around.

I'd just pick up a reasonable sized SATA drive, except that the new drive
may just end up in a USB enclosure. This means that I'd need a PATA drive.

When considering the same drive in PATA vs SATA, is there a performance
difference?

Seagate 320GB Barracuda 7200.10 ATA w/ 16MB Cache vs. Seagate 320GB
Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II w/ NCQ, 16MB Cache ...same price on each - $110
(Cdn)

I don't see any PATA drives in the drive reference, so I can't tell if there
really is a benefit from SATA.

What do y'all think?

P.s. I can get a 500g Maxtor Maxline Pro for $160 (Cdn)... REALLY nice
price, but it's SATA only.

Mechanically the drives may be the same with the same speed rotation
of the platter [7200]. They also both have the same size cache.

The difference between the two interfaces is in the speed of data
transfer from the Hard Drive to the Mother board.
PATA sends data to the Motherboard at 133MBytes/sec, while SATA sends
data at 150MBps [or faster]. Refer to either of these pages for more
info;
http://www.interfacebus.com/Design_Connector_Serial_ATA.html
http://www.interfacebus.com/Design_Connector_IDE.html

While PATA is not obsolete, it is outdated compared to SATA.

If you put the drive in a USB case than you lock the transfer speed to
what ever version of USB your running;
http://www.interfacebus.com/Design_Connector_USB.html

I'd go with the SATA, PATA is yesterdays gear.....

Main page: http://www.interfacebus.com/
Computer Bus descriptions: http://www.interfacebus.com/Interface_PC_Buses.html

 

[Noozer]

I'd just pick up a reasonable sized SATA drive, except that the new drive
I should have explained this a bit better... The drive would probably end up
in a USB enclosure at my next upgrade, etc.

Mechanically the drives may be the same with the same speed rotation
of the platter [7200]. They also both have the same size cache.

The difference between the two interfaces is in the speed of data
transfer from the Hard Drive to the Mother board.
PATA sends data to the Motherboard at 133MBytes/sec, while SATA sends
data at 150MBps [or faster]. Refer to either of these pages for more

Well... The current systems I'm using are a Asus P4C800E-Dlx, using the
Intel 875 chipset and an overclocked 2.4Ghz P4 (3Ghz); and a DFI nF4
LanParty Ultra-D, using the nForce 4 chipset and a overclocked dual core
Opteron 165 (2Ghz). Lots of PATA ports here.

I'd go with the SATA, PATA is yesterdays gear.....

That is one reason for considering a PATA drive... At upgrade time, the
drive would go from my system to a USB enclosure.

I've got plenty of PATA enclosures around here. I can keep my older drives
useful longer by moving them from my PC to the USB enclosures whenever I
upgrade.

Looks like I'll be using a PATA drive. Probably my last PATA purchase
though.

 

[Paul]

I've got a failing 40gig drive so I'm looking to purchase a new drive and
shuffle my collection of drives around.

I'd just pick up a reasonable sized SATA drive, except that the new drive
may just end up in a USB enclosure. This means that I'd need a PATA drive.

When considering the same drive in PATA vs SATA, is there a performance
difference?

Seagate 320GB Barracuda 7200.10 ATA w/ 16MB Cache vs. Seagate 320GB
Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II w/ NCQ, 16MB Cache ...same price on each - $110
(Cdn)

I don't see any PATA drives in the drive reference, so I can't tell if there
really is a benefit from SATA.

What do y'all think?


P.s. I can get a 500g Maxtor Maxline Pro for $160 (Cdn)... REALLY nice
price, but it's SATA only.

There are enclosures that take a SATA drive internally, and have USB2
externally. In fact, there are quite a few different interface
combinations.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...10090092+1054107131+1054207132&Subcategory=92

The faster interface speed of SATA, only gets used when the size of
data transfer fits into the drives cache. Sustained transfer rates,
where the cache is full, and you are waiting on the platter, are
still satisfied by PATA or SATA.

Also, not all SATA controllers run at their full claimed speed. There
are some Silicon Image chips with shameful performance. So the cable
may be the only part of the hardware, that is going fast. AFAIK,
Southbridge interfaces are generally pretty good, and may give
something closer to the cable rate. And in some cases, there
are obvious inferior mixes of technology, like sticking a 300MB/sec
SATA interface, on a PCI Express x1 lane running at 250MB/sec. You
won't get a burst speed of 300MB/sec from hardware built like that.

Paul

 

[GlowingBlueMist]

I've got a failing 40gig drive so I'm looking to purchase a new drive and
shuffle my collection of drives around.

I'd just pick up a reasonable sized SATA drive, except that the new drive
may just end up in a USB enclosure. This means that I'd need a PATA drive.

When considering the same drive in PATA vs SATA, is there a performance
difference?

Seagate 320GB Barracuda 7200.10 ATA w/ 16MB Cache vs. Seagate 320GB
Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II w/ NCQ, 16MB Cache ...same price on each - $110
(Cdn)

I don't see any PATA drives in the drive reference, so I can't tell if
there really is a benefit from SATA.

What do y'all think?


P.s. I can get a 500g Maxtor Maxline Pro for $160 (Cdn)... REALLY nice
price, but it's SATA only.

Empty SATA to USB drive enclosures are common on Ebay. I'd not worry about
the problem until you think about purchasing your newer system. Then check
out the available drive enclosures to hold the SATA drive.

 

[Cal Vanize]

Empty SATA to USB drive enclosures are common on Ebay. I'd not worry about
the problem until you think about purchasing your newer system. Then check
out the available drive enclosures to hold the SATA drive.

Need to be careful about selecting external USB hard drive enclosures
since some don't do well with larger drives.

 

[Rod Speed]

I've got a failing 40gig drive so I'm looking to purchase a new drive and shuffle my collection of
drives around.

I'd just pick up a reasonable sized SATA drive, except that the new drive may just end up in a USB
enclosure. This means that I'd need a PATA drive.

No it doesnt, there are plenty of those that will take a SATA drive
and those are better because you can use eSATA to the external
enclosure and get much better speeds than with USB, but still have
the USB available for use on systems that only have USB and can
do SMART on the external drive to monitor stuff like temperatures etc.

When considering the same drive in PATA vs SATA, is there a performance difference?

Seagate 320GB Barracuda 7200.10 ATA w/ 16MB Cache vs. Seagate 320GB
Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II w/ NCQ, 16MB Cache ...same price on each - $110 (Cdn)

I don't see any PATA drives in the drive reference, so I can't tell if there really is a benefit
from SATA.

What do y'all think?

The same drive with two different interfaces perform at that
same speed, essentially because the speed is determined
by the drive physical detail, rpm, sectors per track etc and
isnt determined by the interface speed at all with that pair.

P.s. I can get a 500g Maxtor Maxline Pro for $160 (Cdn)... REALLY nice price, but it's SATA only.

Those die like flys, I wouldnt touch them myself.

 

[Rod Speed]

Need to be careful about selecting external USB hard drive enclosures
since some don't do well with larger drives.

Unlikely to be a problem with the ones that take SATA drives.

 

[Sleepy]

I've got a failing 40gig drive so I'm looking to purchase a new drive and
shuffle my collection of drives around.

I'd just pick up a reasonable sized SATA drive, except that the new drive
may just end up in a USB enclosure. This means that I'd need a PATA drive.

When considering the same drive in PATA vs SATA, is there a performance
difference?

Seagate 320GB Barracuda 7200.10 ATA w/ 16MB Cache vs. Seagate 320GB
Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II w/ NCQ, 16MB Cache ...same price on each - $110
(Cdn)

I don't see any PATA drives in the drive reference, so I can't tell if
there really is a benefit from SATA.

What do y'all think?


P.s. I can get a 500g Maxtor Maxline Pro for $160 (Cdn)... REALLY nice
price, but it's SATA only.

Ive got 2 WD HDDS - same rpm and cache but ones ATA100 and the other is SATA
150 - I benched them and the SATA was 5% faster. Motherboard designs and
HDDs may vary but its logical that SATA is faster than PATA but not much as
my test showed.

 

[Cal Vanize]

Ive got 2 WD HDDS - same rpm and cache but ones ATA100 and the other is SATA
150 - I benched them and the SATA was 5% faster. Motherboard designs and
HDDs may vary but its logical that SATA is faster than PATA but not much as
my test showed.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage.html

 

[GT]

The difference between the two interfaces is in the speed of data

transfer from the Hard Drive to the Mother board.
PATA sends data to the Motherboard at 133MBytes/sec, while SATA sends
data at 150MBps [or faster].

And average hard disks can manage around 60MBps, so the interface is not the
bottleneck.