WD Raptor... Sata or SataII?

Firegod · 24 Aug 2006 at 11:01

Just finished putting my new hdd's and re-formatted my PC, but I've just checked and my 7200.10 is running in SataII mode and the Raptor is running normal Sata speeds.

Is that ok, is the Raptor not SataII? For some reason I've always thought it was?

Talk about my dumb question for today.

Thanks!

jhmaeng · 24 Aug 2006 at 11:37

If you bought it more than ~6 months ago, it will most likely be SATA I.

More specifically, model numbers ending -GD is SATAI, whereas -ADFD is SATAII.

MeatLoaf · 24 Aug 2006 at 13:47

I thought they were all SATA I

Firegod · 24 Aug 2006 at 14:47

Hmmm, well I bought it about 4 days ago and it's the 16mb cache version and looking at the website it says Western Digital Raptor 74GB WD740ADFD and I've just checked the P/N on the drive and it's the same yet the drive states SerialATA (on the label).

:confused:

So I guess ADFD can't be SATAII??

jhmaeng · 24 Aug 2006 at 18:03

C O R R E C T I O N

Actually, just checked the WD website again, and it appears that it's SATA I for both -GD and -ADFD. Having said that, the maximum bandwidth of SATA I (150MB/s) is more than enough for the maximum sustained transfer rate of even the 150GB Raptor (the fastest non-SCSI drive available) so the extra bandwidth of the SATA II (300MB/s) is wasted anyway.

smids · 24 Aug 2006 at 18:40

Actually it is SATA-II however it does not have the 300MB/s feature.

Checking my SATA-II sticky you will notice that 300MB/s external transfer rate is not a compulsory feature of SATA-II. A 150MB/s drive can be SATA-II too

. It contains other features of SATA-II.

Firegod · 24 Aug 2006 at 19:01

Thanks for the help,

So in actual fact it is Sata-II even though the label on the drive just says SATA and Windows sets the transfer rate as "Sata Gen 1".

Really though, it doesn't matter, it's still plenty quick.

lol. I just wanted to check it was ok.

Cheers again for all the info!

smids · 24 Aug 2006 at 19:06

Well the real problem comes from manufacturers coining 300MB/s as SATA-II when it's many different features and not necessarily 300MB/s. SATA Gen 1 is just proof of this fact, though it makes it easier for the consumers.

You'll not reach 150MB/s, let alone 300MB/s so it's moot but I'm just clarifying - damn manufacturers and retailers confusing people :mad:

.

Justintime · 24 Aug 2006 at 19:10

Same with ATA100 and 133, theoretical bandwidth was there but mostly unused.