SATA versis IDE
SATA versis IDE
Is SATA better than IDE and why?
Does SATA have more conductors? My understanding was more conductors = more bandwidth . . .
Does SATA have more conductors? My understanding was more conductors = more bandwidth . . .
No.MD-2389 wrote:Basically, it boils down to how the data is handled. Parallel is basically a row of bits (typically 8 or so). Once the buffer fills, THEN the data is sent on down the line. Serial is just one bit at a time, so theres no waiting for the buffer to fill first before data is sent.
How large are the buffers on the your average SATA drive? 8 MBs.
If SATA was introduced a decade ago, yes what MD said holds water.
The benefits of SATA are being enjoyed largely by motherboard makers - from their perspective SATA as the same benefits as RAMBUS without the ligitious one-trick pony pushing it - reduced wire complexity.
your standard IDE drive now uses a 40 pin, 80 wire calbe, while SATA use a 6 pin connector. The primary limiting factor of speed for your standard drive was crosstalk from the wires in the connector - the extra 40 wires for ATA66 drives and up was to reduce crosstalk. With the reduction of the number of wire reduced the crosstalk potential and allows the possiblity of shielding the wires and longer wires. Also, by throwing away that big connector, you gain more space on motherboards - enough that current SATA boards can give 4 drives their own dedicated connection - no more dealing with master/slave relationships.
Also, with smaller wires, you can more airflow in your case.
Lastly, SATA can be used externally.
Thank you, very interesting!fyrephlie wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ata
extra extra ... read all about it... or don't, w/e.
The interface has very little to do with performance of current drives
If you had two drives, each spinning at 7200 rpms each with 8mb cache, there would be no difference in data transfer rates if it was done with serial ata or parallel ata
Why? Because the drive can't saturate the bus, the bottleneck isn't the bus, it is the drive itself.
If you had two drives, each spinning at 7200 rpms each with 8mb cache, there would be no difference in data transfer rates if it was done with serial ata or parallel ata
Why? Because the drive can't saturate the bus, the bottleneck isn't the bus, it is the drive itself.