Real-world comparisons between SATA 150 and SATA 300
in [Storage]
|
From: Odie Ferrous on 4 Jul 2005 02:38 Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in speed between the two? Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing? Odie -- Retrodata www.retrodata.co.uk Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
From: Ron Reaugh on 4 Jul 2005 04:10 "Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42C8D97A.F6E76128(a)hotmail.com... > Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in > speed between the two? Rephrase your question. I suspect you realize how naive it is on the surface. Are you just trolling? Obviously the answer is that SATA 150 bursts at very close to half the speed of SATA 300 but neither have much to do with the speed of a HD itself. > Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of > a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing? There are a number of sites that have hard drive benchmarks posted. You'll find that SATA 300 HDs give about the same benchmark results when connected to an SATA 150 only controller for a single user workstation loads.
From: Odie Ferrous on 4 Jul 2005 05:38 Ron Reaugh wrote: > > "Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:42C8D97A.F6E76128(a)hotmail.com... > > Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in > > speed between the two? > > Rephrase your question. I think a twelve-year-old would understand my question without resorting to facetious comments. > I suspect you realize how naive it is on the > surface. Are you just trolling? Obviously the answer is that SATA 150 > bursts at very close to half the speed of SATA 300 but neither have much to > do with the speed of a HD itself. > > > Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of > > a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing? > > There are a number of sites that have hard drive benchmarks posted. You'll > find that SATA 300 HDs give about the same benchmark results when connected > to an SATA 150 only controller for a single user workstation loads. I think most people would have understood I meant the SATA 150 drive being on a SATA 150 controller, and the SATA 300 being on a SATA 300 controller. I suppose I have to apologise for your lack of intuition? You clearly have no "real world" experience of this particular subject, so please don't bother commenting. Odie -- Retrodata www.retrodata.co.uk Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
From: Ron Reaugh on 4 Jul 2005 06:22 "Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42C9039F.24E42051(a)hotmail.com... > Ron Reaugh wrote: >> >> "Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:42C8D97A.F6E76128(a)hotmail.com... >> > Does anyone have any actual, real world experience of the difference in >> > speed between the two? >> >> Rephrase your question. > > I think a twelve-year-old would understand my question without resorting > to facetious comments. > > >> I suspect you realize how naive it is on the >> surface. Are you just trolling? Obviously the answer is that SATA 150 >> bursts at very close to half the speed of SATA 300 but neither have much >> to >> do with the speed of a HD itself. >> >> > Is the difference immediately noticeable, or does it require the use of >> > a stopwatch capable of millisecond timing? >> >> There are a number of sites that have hard drive benchmarks posted. >> You'll >> find that SATA 300 HDs give about the same benchmark results when >> connected >> to an SATA 150 only controller for a single user workstation loads. > > > I think most people would have understood I meant the SATA 150 drive > being on a SATA 150 controller, and the SATA 300 being on a SATA 300 > controller. It is precisely clear that is what you meant and also precisely is what demonstrated your naivety, Either a SATA150 or SATA300 HD will give rather close to the same performance whether connected to an SATA150 or SATA300 controller in single user workstation usage. SATA150 vs SATA300 isn't relevant. Particular HD models are relevant. > I suppose I have to apologise for your lack of intuition? > > You clearly have no "real world" experience of this particular subject, > so please don't bother commenting. Obviously the opposite is true. Check out some benchmarks.
From: Odie Ferrous on 4 Jul 2005 09:17 Ron Reaugh wrote: > <snip> > Either a SATA150 or SATA300 HD will give rather close to the same > performance whether connected to an SATA150 or SATA300 > controller in single user workstation usage. SATA150 vs SATA300 isn't > relevant. Particular HD models are relevant. Why not just say this in the first place? Simple (that figures), succinct and to the point. Grief - talk about walking around in circles. Besides, from your behaviour I wouldn't believe you if you told me the earth was approximately round. I'm hardly likely to have much faith in your ability to differentiate between SATA I and II. Thanks anyway - it must have been an effort for you. Odie -- Retrodata www.retrodata.co.uk Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: PartitionMagic crash in data movement phase Next: Problems with Adaptec ASH-1233 IDE adapter |