ata 133 worth it?

[azureblu12]

ata 133 worth it?

[Maxvla]

no. ata 66 is more than sufficient for todays drives. and that won't change til we go from disk based drives to ram based drives.

[cack01]

Originally posted by Maxvla
no. ata 66 is more than sufficient for todays drives. and that won't change til we go from disk based drives to ram based drives.


Maxvla is right ATA 133 is hardly faster than ATA100. But I don't know about ATA66. It just seems so long ago.

[Maxvla]

Originally posted by cack01



Maxvla is right ATA 133 is hardly faster than ATA100. But I don't know about ATA66. It just seems so long ago.
ata66 is 66mb/s transfer speed. most of todays drives are about 30-35mb/s even the fastest are still low 40's. we are talking ide.. not scsi. so... there's you explanation.

[Maxvla]

Originally posted by cack01



Maxvla is right ATA 133 is hardly faster than ATA100. But I don't know about ATA66. It just seems so long ago.
also... actual ata 133 is much faster than ata100... its just we don't have hardware that can even come close to using that large of a bandwidth which makes it seem like the speed difference is not much.

[xvi3tsoljahx]

get those 8meg buffer special edition extremely fast... not sure if its my hd or my processor.... boots up and loads fast.... baby vox looks so cute :)

[cack01]

Originally posted by Maxvla

ata66 is 66mb/s transfer speed. most of todays drives are about 30-35mb/s even the fastest are still low 40's. we are talking ide.. not scsi. so... there's you explanation.

I did not know that IDE drives were only 30-35 mb. I learn something everyday. But from a lot of reviews I read ATA133 was not much faster than ATA100 and there for it doesn't justify the cost, which was his main question.

[Arkaine23]

What cost? The ata133 drives are practically the same price as ata100 drives, and they do perform a smideon better in benchmarks. Isn't that an overclocker's meat and bread, that last ounce of performance that is only noticable in a benchmark?

[azureblu12]

ty very much for all your guys' opinions. Btw, baby vox looks really cute...

[Penguin4x4]

I say someone manufacture an ATA-133 with 8 or 10Mb Cache. :)

[Maxvla]

Originally posted by cack01
ATA133 was not much faster than ATA100 and there for it doesn't justify the cost, which was his main question.
and i answered that question as well. or did you not see that? with current hard drives you wouldn't notice more than a 1-3% gain from ata100-ata133. technically you shouldn't see any gain but i guess the information is handled a bit different with the different tech level so its a bit better.

once more for clarity.

current hard drives = 30-45mb (most in the low 30's)
ata 33 = 33mb/s bandwidth
ata 66 = 66mb/s bandwidth
ata100 = 100mb/s bandwidth
ata133 = 133mb/s bandwidth

so why do we need 133mb/s transfer capability for a drive running at 1/4 the speed.

thats like getting a ferrari and putting a small diesel engine in it. the car can handle faster speeds but the engine is limiting its performance.
------------------------
xvi3tsoljahx, even those can't come close to needing ata 66.
------------------------
btw guys... baby vox is a GROUP of 5 female singers. here's a pic for you. Vox (http://members.directvinternet.com/maxvla/babyvox2-1024lq.jpg)

[AgEnT0140]

Originally posted by Penguin4x4
I say someone manufacture an ATA-133 with 8 or 10Mb Cache. :)

and what will the point of that be? so they can charge us more money for something we dont need? most compaies arent even going to make ata133 drives.

[nihili]

If you're buying a mobo, then ATA133 is worth it on the off chance someone can eventually make a drive that takes advantage of it. If you're buying a hard drive, then there is no appreciable difference betwee ATA133 and ATA100. Some 133 drives perform better than some 100 drvies, and some 100 drives perform better than some 133 drives. Look for a drive that will perform reliably and whose stats are good in the areas that will make the most difference to you, at a price that matches your budget. Concentrate on actual performance and not on whether it is ATA133 or ATA100.

nihili

[oo_7]

I have a ATA133 mobo, and went for the maxtor 40Gb HD as they where only $80, the same as the ATA100 HD they were selling. So if your mobo supports ATA133, u should go for it...

[azureblu12]

yeah i know, i like eun hye the best

[FTC]

no. ata 66 is more than sufficient for todays drives. and that won't change til we go from disk based drives to ram based drives

Well, I for one can not agree with the LAST part of the sentence. If we have now 40Gb/platter disks and those are running in the mid 30's Mb/sec, I expect that next generation drives, that will have 100 Gb/platter or so can almost DOUBLE the transfer rate... and the reason is easy, the density will increase in tracks/mm, but also in bits/track... and the speed will be mantained (7200) or increased (10000)... so you esaily see the # of bits that can be read per rotation will be a lot bigger.... and I expect this can still hold true for the next 2-3 hdd tech generations.

So the net is : hdd mechanic technology can still provide with a lot faster transfer speeds... the problem will remain improving on seek times, but this for many mass storage aplications is not very important, if huge amounts of data are stored/retrieved sequentially.

Regards
FTC

[nihili]

Originally posted by FTC


Well, I for one can not agree with the LAST part of the sentence. If we have now 40Gb/platter disks and those are running in the mid 30's Mb/sec, I expect that next generation drives, that will have 100 Gb/platter or so can almost DOUBLE the transfer rate... and the reason is easy, the density will increase in tracks/mm, but also in bits/track... and the speed will be mantained (7200) or increased (10000)... so you esaily see the # of bits that can be read per rotation will be a lot bigger.... and I expect this can still hold true for the next 2-3 hdd tech generations.

So the net is : hdd mechanic technology can still provide with a lot faster transfer speeds... the problem will remain improving on seek times, but this for many mass storage aplications is not very important, if huge amounts of data are stored/retrieved sequentially.

Regards
FTC

If this reasoning were sound, then we should have seen a doubling in speed when we went form 10gig to 40gig platters. But we didn't see that increase.

nihili

[Maxvla]

Originally posted by nihili


If this reasoning were sound, then we should have seen a doubling in speed when we went form 10gig to 40gig platters. But we didn't see that increase.

nihili

very nice post. also... by the time we get 100gb/platter drives... the memory based drives will be out and still probably pretty expensive... but all the overclockers will be selling their mothers to get one. even if you 100gb/platter drives double the speed thats only 80mb/s at the most. even the prototype ram-drives are at a minimum of 90-100mb/s which i'm sure with further research can easily be inflated to 133mb/s this all will be several years down the road... so don't get all riled up about it.

[Monaco]

From what I understand, you CAN use all of that ATA bandwidth by using a RAID array. If each drive maxes out at 30MB/s, and you have, say, a small server with a 4 drive array, that's 120MB/s needed for full speed right there.

But that's only if you are seriously flogging your drives:D

In my own personal experiance, the switch from ATA33 to 66 made a difference, but I haven't noticed one going from ATA66 to 100. 133, eh, I'm not going to worry about it :D

[AgEnT0140]

Originally posted by Monster of Rock
a small server with a 4 drive array, that's 120MB/s needed for full speed right there.

does it have to be a small server to have a 4 drive array? Thats a serious question. what do you mean by small? i was thinking about getting 4 smaller drives for my dual XP 1800+ and taking my 120gb to my p4.

[Monaco]

lol let me rephrase that: small server or beefy home rig :D :D

[AgEnT0140]

Originally posted by Monster of Rock
lol let me rephrase that: small server or beefy home rig :D :D

BEEFEY!! :D

[Maxvla]

Originally posted by AgEnT0140


BEEFEY!! :D
its whats for dinner.

anyways. yeah you could use ata133 with a raid array.. but wow. 120 mb/s what would you be doing that required that?

course... if you are "flogging" your system like that i'd suggest scsi.

[AgEnT0140]

Originally posted by Maxvla

its whats for dinner.

anyways. yeah you could use ata133 with a raid array.. but wow. 120 mb/s what would you be doing that required that?

course... if you are "flogging" your system like that i'd suggest scsi.

too much money.. IDE is cheaper, allthough my board doesnt have onbaord RAID... o well, my 120gb 8mb cache is fine for it.

[Monaco]

there's actually quite a few people here who use a 4-drive RAID array! god knows what they use it FOR...:D

Depending on how it is configured, you will hit a bandwidth wall quite often with RAID! For example, if you stripe across 4 drives, everytime you access data at all you will hit all 4 drives. You'll need ATA133 at a minimum to keep from getting bogged down.

ATA speed really isn't important if you are only using one drive, or multiples in a non-RAID config. But if you RAID, it becomes a very big deal.

[Lancelot]

Well, I've got a Maxtor D740X ATA133 on my BE6-II's Highpoint ATA66 controller and it rocks! A huge difference compared to the original ATA66 drive I had. It's clearly the HDD's hardware speed that's limiting today's IDE interfaces...

[Maxvla]

Originally posted by Lancelot
Well, I've got a Maxtor D740X ATA133 on my BE6-II's Highpoint ATA66 controller and it rocks! A huge difference compared to the original ATA66 drive I had. It's clearly the HDD's hardware speed that's limiting today's IDE interfaces...
obviously your new harddrive is newer design so its faster starting out. i believe your speed difference has nothing to do with ata speeds. and yes you are correct about the hardware speed limiting.

[Lancelot]

Ehmm, Maxvla... Wasn't that what I was saying already?!

[Maxvla]

Originally posted by Lancelot
Ehmm, Maxvla... Wasn't that what I was saying already?!
sorry i missed the part about the highpoint being ata66... thought you said ata133. my mistake.

[Nico3k]

if you ask me, ata133 has a good price/preformance ratio. i got an ata133 7200rpm 80gig and it runs noticably faster then my old ata100 7200rpm 20gig. xvi3tsoljahx is also right about the 8mb buffer drives... they are very fast
you choose... its your computer and your $ :p

[Mr_Scrub]

My experience is that ATA133 DOES make a difference. At least the controller does. I can't explain it but it is definitely true at the office. Every benchmark I've run against ATA133 shows a speedup over ATA100. Varying from minimal up to 30%. Again, I can't explain it but works for me. Especially the data crunching application that converts all my company's information to Web.

Your experience may be different but please don't dismiss the functionality of a ATA133 IDE controller card coupled with a 133 drive.

There's more to it than just the 133 timings. My ATA 100 drives are also faster on the controller also but NOT as fast as the 133's. I use the IBM deskstar series.

Then there's this comparison of the IBM vs Maxtor from

http://www.lostcircuits.com/advice/ibm_maxtor/13.shtml

================
The benchmark results came somewhat unexpected. Not only do they show that the GXP series is, in fact, faster than the D740X series but also show they very clearly that there is a substantial gain when using an external ATA133 controller, even if the drive used is only a UATA 100 drive. None of this shows in any of the synthetic benchmarks but this is not too surprising, after all, synthetic benchmarks are what they are:
synthetic
================

[Maxvla]

Originally posted by Nico3k
if you ask me, ata133 has a good price/preformance ratio. i got an ata133 7200rpm 80gig and it runs noticably faster then my old ata100 7200rpm 20gig. xvi3tsoljahx is also right about the 8mb buffer drives... they are very fast
you choose... its your computer and your $ :p
your ata133 drive is newer but the ata speed has very little to do with the speed increase.

[Nico3k]

i 100% agree with Mr_Scrub... i had the same experience

[OC-Master]

Once again, accoustic management was turn on the Maxtor D740X along with the original ATA-133 controller that Maxtor released, no wonder the benchmarks were so poor in that review you listed.

Now, with Accoustic management off, and the latest Promise ATA-133 PCI card, the maxtor would in most cases bes the IBM. I am also wondering why they used such pathetic outdated utilities to bench the two drives, thats so inaccurate rrRr. Ohwell, there loss.


DS-Master

[OC-Master]

and YES, ATA-133 is worth it, the Maxtor D740X series is unsurpassed in reliability and overall performance (Top RAID0 performer).

If your ever planing to get a RAID setup, go for the D740X line, since they will provide the most bandwidth possible for large RAID configurations.


DS-Master

[Neville]

Yeah i got 2 Maxtor 40gb ata/133 in RAID0 on my Asus A7V333 and Sandra reports over 40000. yeah i know Sandra is not the greatest tool to test but thought i would just throw in my 2 cents.

[Genoide]

Well I have 2 40GB hard drives on RAid 0 array ata 100 using ata 133 cables... well my performance sucks, iam using Epox 8ka3+ mobo DMA mode enabled I get 740 on PCmark 2002 REG ver. and like 20-24,000 in Sandra soft, and I notice the speed on the drives tend to lagg, why you tell me I have been trying to figure this out, they are both Seagate Hard drives same seek times, ST340824A
ST340016A set to 64k on the RAID-0 array.

[Neville]

I cant set the size when setting up the RAID cfg since i have a light version. But it is very fast.

Does anyone know of a bios hack for this Promise chip ?

[Genoide]

Guys, I have a friend running 2x150GB drives on RAID 0 and he gets 254MB/s to drive to drive... they are ATA 133 maxtor how is this possible?

[AgEnT0140]

Originally posted by Genoide
Guys, I have a friend running 2x150GB drives on RAID 0 and he gets 254MB/s to drive to drive... they are ATA 133 maxtor how is this possible?

its not. 150GB :eek: :eek: me want!

[Genoide]

So are u the dude in the avatar?


Well how fast is the 150GB 5400RPM drive? Write/and read

[AgEnT0140]

Originally posted by Genoide
So are u the dude in the avatar?


Well how fast is the 150GB 5400RPM drive? Write/and read

HELL NO! I'm not that fat! got him on google image search :D. are you saying he got those speeds on a 5400rpm drive? thats impossible! and i didnt know they made 150gb drives... how much are they?

[azureblu12]

so whats the data transfer rate ud get with a ultra ata133 drive on a a7v333 my current fave mobo..... since it has the 133 controller in it

[Genoide]

they run for high 100's low 200's and are only 5400rpm www.newegg.com check MAxtor.. they even have 160GB

[azureblu12]

i know the price.... i said the DATA TRANSFER RATE

[Genoide]

anywhere from 20 to 40MB/s
Go test it out for yourself... www.aoa.com look under the download place to search for Hard drive performance utilities.

[azureblu12]

so theres like no diff between ata100-133 cuz u can get that high anyway... but whats that 30% increase im hearing about?(read some posts above)

[Nico3k]

the ata133 channel its self is denfenately faster then ata100... its up to the drive to make the preformance

[texasfit]

Originally posted by Maxvla

sorry i missed the part about the highpoint being ata66... thought you said ata133. my mistake.
I recently changed my D740X Raid0 configuration from a Soyo Dragon+ to the newer BD7II-R board and the performance bench in Sandra went from mid 60K to low 90K.

I would have to agree that it is not the ata100 or 133 but the newer raid controllers and drivers.