How slow is ATA100?

[WackyComputer]

Hi,

I'm thinking about buying a Western digital ATA100 80GB 7200RPM HDD with an 8MB cache.

The only thing I was concerned about was the ATA100 pipeline. Would I notice any speed difference between an ATA100 and an ATA133 HDD?

The reason I'm buying this HDD is the 8MB cache.

Bonus question: What is your favorite brand of IDE HDD, and why?

Thanks,:)

[mdzcpa]

Most of the "performance" surrounding ATA 133 is hype. There is a difference...but it is quite small really. I doubt you would even notice it by the seat o your pants. To me, it's the speed of the drive and the cache that matters more...and you seem to be covered there with a 7200 and 8mb.

That said...you should still be looking for an ATA 133 unless you are saving a good amount of cash going ATA 100.


I prefer WD and Maxtors equally. This is based on reliability and ability to handle OC well. I've not killed one of these yet. (though I have had a good number of other brands go tits up over the years).

[Drake]

I can't recommend IBM drives. Anything over 34MHz PCI kills them :( At least mine

But yeah, there's no reason to go one over the other. I believe the only HD out there with an 8MB cache and ATA133 is the flagship of maxtor.

[sptw]

Hi Wacky,

You can't go wrong with this WD.The difference between ATA 100 and ATA 133 is almost imperceptible.You can say none.
Well, about the other brands, IBM, hummm the new 180 GXP seems to be fast too, but reliable?No i wouldn't go for IBM, at least not yet, maybe one or two more years.Maxtor, well.... this new Diamond max 9 with 8 mb cache would be a good choice too, price will be my choice between WD and Maxtor.Seagate, for SCSI yes, definitely my choice, but for IDE, not, silent they are, but not so fast when compared to WD, IBM or DM maxtor.Hitachi, no,no, they merged with IBM, consider it as a IBM too.And for last , Fujitsu, never got one, but they had a lot of problem with one model on the past year.I remember a big recall!!!
Yes, western Digital or Maxtor would be my choice in this moment.

[MrP]

in theory ATA-133 is quicker, but the only time you are going to get anywhere near shifting 100 or 133mb of data off a hard disk is if you have 2 or more paired up in a raid 0 setup

a hard disk on its own wil shift around 40-45mb of data a second, must from the cache, but thats not going ot happen over often in every day use

its worth having, but as mike says, in every day use it wont be felt

toodle pip

[Drake]

I thought that both ATA133 and ATA100 sustained around 80-85MB/s in a RAID 0 setup?

[MrP]

if your only useing 2 disks then yes, if our using 3 ata-133 sjould be quicker

[sptw]

No Drake, it only happens on the beggining of the disc (external plate) sequential reading and on the buffer.

[WackyComputer]

Thanks for the input.:)

So, it's like this, right?
Pipeline:
|||||||||||||||||||||||||this big
Data:
|||||||||||this much

There will be no RAID for me. Just a single drive.

Right now I have all Maxtors, and 1 60GB Maxtor just bit it.
So, I thought I would try a WD.

The WD ATA100 is about $15 cheaper than the Maxtor ATA133.

Now I can buy a UV light with the $15 I'll be saving.;)

[Player0]

The WD 8m drives are absolutely great, and are one of the fastest drives on the market still. The IBM 180GXP drives are also fast. I haven't heard of any IBM problems with the 120GXP or the 180GXP drives, so it's quite possible that the problems have been corrected.

I don't like Maxtor's reliability, and ATA133 is worthless for a single drive. The only benefit of ATA133 is in RAID striping modes. Even then, its not the interface of the HDs that matter, it's the interface of the controller. My three WD1200JB drives peak at like 125MB/s in stripping mode, which I wouldn't beable to get without an ATA133 controller (even though the drives are still ATA100).

Your a single drive, don't worry about it. With all the graphics stuff you do, you're the perfect candidate for a RAID5 configuration though.

[WesM63]

Me loves raid 5 :)

I've never noticed any difference in ATA 100 VS 133.

Also, WD seems to the best in my opinion.

[Player0]

I should point out that I only get 125MB/s on the dually xeon board which uses a PCI-X slot. You would NEVER see this on any standard PCI based motherboard. The PCI bus itself is a huge limitation, the only way to bypass it is to go with high-end stuff.

[sptw]

and..... a wonderful 3Ware escalade ATA Raid card :D

[WackyComputer]

Follow up.

Well, I bought the Western digital ATA100 80GB 7200RPM HDD with an 8MB cache at circuit city for the low low price of $69 after rebates.:D

Good deal, huh?;)

[mdzcpa]

Originally posted by WackyComputer
Follow up.

Well, I bought the Western digital ATA100 80GB 7200RPM HDD with an 8MB cache at circuit city for the low low price of $69 after rebates.:D

Good deal, huh?;)

Wow....that is a darn good deal. That 8mb cache will really help too.

[Drake]

Aye, I see 80GB WD SE drives going for $100 regularly, but around $80 or less in retail stores after rebates.

[tripodal]

My best friend got a 200gb for $229 because of a "rain check" if you know what those are. He went to another best buy that had it in stock then and got the drive.... then got the rebate
must have been a typo on the form.

[tripodal]

Originally posted by WackyComputer
Thanks for the input.:)

Now I can buy a UV light with the $15 I'll be saving.;)


best be careful... uv lights can turn the stickers on cheap powersupplies pink....

[Tom T]

Player, what do you think about seagate serial ata vs diamond max 9 maxtor ata 133 drive? Will only be running one drive. Will I notice a difference? I am trying to decide if its worth the extra 40 or 50 over the ata 133. Thanks, Tom

[Drake]

Since serial ATA is a relatively immature technology, it hasn't been performing at it's best. In fact, it hardly keeps up with todays PATA drives. It seems to me the defining factor of the performance of a desktop drive is the cache.

[Tom T]

I read somewhere that the ata interface was more reliable and created fewer errors than existing tech, that with the 8mb of cach and 7200 rpm would seem to be a nice combo. There again, I do not know anyone who has one so.....I'm going to try to find the article so I can post a link. Thanks, Tom

[Drake]

I would stick with tried-and-true for now, until we start actually seeing 150MB/s from the first gen of SATA.