1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Is Ultra-ATA compatible with (simple) ATA/IDE or compatible with Serial-ATA ?

Discussion in 'Laptops' started by Oliver Boswell, Oct 24, 2006.

  1. As the subject alerady said I want to know if
    Ultra-ATA (for hard discs) is compatible with (simple) ATA/IDE or compatible with Serial-ATA ?

    If Serial-ATA is the answer: Is Ultra-ATA better or worse then (Serial)-ATA ?

    Oliver Boswell, Oct 24, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Go with SATA.
    SATA is the standard now.

    The cables are different (as is the protocol/drives/etc..) for the three you
    mentioned - although you *could* use regular 40 wire cables with
    UltraATA/ATA... You lose out and are not actually getting everything you
    could out of it.

    Of course - there are SATA/SATA2 drives out there - and in order to utilize
    their full functionality - all things muct be ready to do so in the chain of
    hardware (drive, cable, connection to motherboard...)

    SATA is faster... SATA2 even more so. None of that matters if the drive
    access is not your bottleneck in your current system.
    Shenan Stanley, Oct 24, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. "Go with" ?????

    This is a laptop forum. You don't have a choice of which to "go with"
    on any given laptop. The laptop's designers made the "go with" decision
    and you are stuck with it, because parallel ATA (IDE/ATA/UATA) is
    incompatible with serial ATA (SATA).
    Barry Watzman, Oct 24, 2006
  4. Oliver Boswell

    Odie Ferrous Guest

    Not in my experience, it's not. Actually, there's little difference in
    real-world speed between ATA66 and SATA-300, although you can get more
    powerful controllers (Areca) for the latter, which *do* make a

    And I think any system more powerful than a P3 1GHz is going to be
    bottlenecked at the hard drive I/O. In other words, the vast majority
    of systems out there today.

    But that's just my take on the issue.

    Odie Ferrous, Oct 24, 2006
  5. Oliver Boswell

    Arno Wagner Guest

    I have a pair of Samsungs which are identical, except for the
    interface. One is ATA100, one SATA. No speed differencfe noticeable.
    I agree that a [email protected] should be able to saturate most current 7200
    rpm disks in some applications. And of course if you have two disks
    on an ATA bus, some modern disks already can deliver a bit more data
    than ATA133 can transport, which gives SATA an edge in some
    situations. But keep in mind that PCI has a theroetical upper
    speed limit of 135MB/s and a practical limit on a slower chipset
    more like 70-80MB/s or so.

    Arno Wagner, Oct 25, 2006
  6. Oliver Boswell

    SMS Guest

    In practice, the cache hits in the L2 cache, and in the system memory
    used for cache, make the difference theoretical, except in applications
    where there would be both few cache hits, and a need for the higher data
    rates. Such applications aren't that rare any more, such as non-linear
    video editing.

    Forget about PCI's bandwidth, as PCI Express is what is used in the
    latest systems.
    SMS, Oct 25, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.