Sata 150 v 300

I am lazy i guess. Thought i would ask on here instead of reading! :D

So, 150 is good enough then?
 
Last edited:
You are unlikely to notice the difference in normal operation at all, only in benchmarks like HDTach will you even see the higher burst speed. There is just one SATA standard but with 'additions/enhancements' that are sometimes (and incorrectly although I've done it myself) called SATA II or SATA2. If your motherboard doesn't support the additions then the hard drive will still work fine, you just won't the that feature so for a hard drive supporting 300MB/s you might have to leave on a jumper to limit it to 150MB/s as not all motherboards will autoswitch between the two. :)
 
joeyjojo said:
Maximum bandwidth raised to 300 MB/s. Not achievable without multiple drives though ie RAID.
It's not achievable with multiple drives because the 300Mb/s is per drive not per controller ;)
 
rpstewart said:
It's not achievable with multiple drives because the 300Mb/s is per drive not per controller ;)
Depends on how you want to interpret that ;). Hypothetically, that bandwidth is achievable, and can be used to demonstrate how far we are away from topping the interface of a drive...

Also, when using a port multiplier, you will be limited to this speed... in which case, this is a controller interface limitation. :p

Sorry, I'll be quiet now...
 
Hehe, it was just a technicality. rp is right in what he said, I'm just being a little pedantic. Not that any of you guys would use a port multiplier (I've tried to source a fairly cheap one in the past, just so not worth it).
 
smids said:
Depends on how you want to interpret that ;). Hypothetically, that bandwidth is achievable, and can be used to demonstrate how far we are away from topping the interface of a drive...

Also, when using a port multiplier, you will be limited to this speed... in which case, this is a controller interface limitation. :p

Sorry, I'll be quiet now...
When using a port multiplier on a SATA 300 port and you 'only' get 300MB/sec, then I would see that as a port limitation not a controller one.
 
basmic said:
When using a port multiplier on a SATA 300 port and you 'only' get 300MB/sec, then I would see that as a port limitation not a controller one.
Now we really are getting into semantics. The port is indeed limited, but the port is attached to the controller and controlled by the controller's logic processor chip; for this reason it is a controller limitation.

You might be aware but the Serial-ATA 6Gbps interface is due this year and will use the same SATA cables as we have now i.e. the same ports. The controller chips will be upgraded allowing for the use of this extra bandwidth (due mid this year I believe). So in essence this is a host bus adapter limitation and not a port limitation. It is the controller chip which limits the speed, not the port itself.
 
digit-life said:
Serial ATA 3.0 development is underway - transfer rates will be doubled to 6 Gbps. Completion of SATA 3.0 specifications is expected in the second half of 2007. However, the practical upgrade from 3 Gbps to 6 Gbps will not be as simple as it was with the 1.5-3 Gbps. So even though real transfer rates will not reach 6 Gbps soon, this upgrade must be prepared beforehand. Besides, there exist such devices as port-multipliers and port-aggregators, where 6 Gbps rates will be used earlier..
In case it helps :)

Source: http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/editorial/idf07pekin-day0a.html
 
Back
Top Bottom