1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Difference between SATA and SATA II?

Discussion in 'Desktop & Laptop Computers Forum' started by Frazal666, Jul 21, 2005.

  1. Frazal666

    Frazal666
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
  2. shaithis

    shaithis
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,635
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    The Last Aerie
    Ratings:
    +30
    SATA II was supposedly being made to make SATA drives more appealing to enterprise users (i.e. to be used in servers)..

    As far as I know, they are the same as SATA I drives but support a few additional features, 2 are useless to desktop users but 1 feature (native command queuing) can be useful.

    Unless there is no or little cost difference or you are building a server and/or want to use redundant controllers, then I would stick to SATA I.
     
  3. Skunkpipe

    Skunkpipe
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I didn't think Native command queuing was necessarily a SATAII thing. I maybe wrong.

    For SATAII the bandwidth has been increased from 150 to 300mbps - but you won't see any performance increase as most drives give little over 50-60mbps throughput anyway
     
  4. Frazal666

    Frazal666
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    ok, ill just stick to 1.

    cheers
     
  5. mjn

    mjn
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Messages:
    17,603
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Herts, England
    Ratings:
    +4,520
    NCQ is available on both SATA and SATA-II, but the main difference, as already mentioned, is the increased bandwidth from 150 to 300mbps.
     
  6. Maff et1

    Maff et1
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    This might help: http://www.serialata.org/docs/SATA II Why paper.pdf

    Main thing is 300MB/s vs 150MB/s and support for multi end point cables (allowing more than one drive per port), this, and the 300MB/s will be usefull for raid cabling.

    For most people it's not an issue.
     
  7. probedb

    probedb
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,653
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Ratings:
    +181
    The board supports SATA-II so you may as well take advantage. I did, Hitachi drive with 3Gbps and NCQ I believe :)
     
  8. Frazal666

    Frazal666
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Im not going to use raid, so I will not find it useful. Anyway, even if I do use raid, wont 150mb/s still be efficient enough? If a hard drive's bandwith is about 60-70mb/s, the maximum that two hard drives on a raid confuguration will only use 140mb/s.

    I could be wrong, so please correct me if I am.
     
  9. Skunkpipe

    Skunkpipe
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    No that's correct - HDD's will get quicker - and there are already very fast drives out there so they're just building some headroom into the standard
     
  10. probedb

    probedb
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,653
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Ratings:
    +181
    From tests of the drive I've seen, you really only see the 3gbps as a peak hit on file transfers, but it's basically just that little bit quicker in day to day use even without RAID, plus the drive wasn't exactly more expensive.
     

Share This Page

Loading...