SillyDog701

[Antony]

Hello guys,

I'd like to know the difference between IDE (aka "ATA", now called "PATA") interface and SATA (Serial ATA) interface.

I know SATA is a newer technology, but what are the benefits of SATA over ATA (PATA)? Can someone please give me a quick guide?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/418.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/419.3

[Tidus]

The differences between SATA and PATA are mainly speed. SATA uses thinner cables too. SATA runs from 100MB/sec, to 3OOMB/sec, and faster.

IDE (PATA) started at 5MB, and runs up to 100MB/sec, at ATA100/133

SATA uses less channels too, meaning the cables are thinner, and the inside of your machine was neater, which is ideal if you have a PC case with an acrylic window, and cathode lights in (Some Mac enthusiasts may try this too, like my missy with her G5)

You must make sure your PC/Mac supports it too, as the connectors are different to IDE, as well as the cables

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060909 Firefox/1.5.0.7

[Don_HH2K]

The major difference is line speed. Parallel ATA standards topped out at 133MB/sec, while SATA started at 150MB/sec, and the SATA II spec doubled it to 300MB/sec. (I think this is because you get more bandwidth per pin on a serial interface.)

You don't need to jumper a SATA hard drive as a primary/secondary disk, though on the downside you need two cables. Whether a drive is a primary or secondary disk depends on what you connect the drive to on the board (there'll be two connectors for each channel if I'm not mistaken).

They also changed the "official" power cables from the 4-pin ones we use now to a 15-pin connector.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060917 Firefox/1.5.0.7 (mmoy CE K8M-X19)

[Antony]

So the bus speed of SATA interface is faster than IDE (ATA) interface, but does it really mean "faster"? So is the speed of HDD still depends on the rpm or HDD itself?

Are there any other benefits of SATA over IDE for the system? Besides newer type of cable?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/418.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/419.3

[Don_HH2K]

So the bus speed of SATA interface is faster than IDE (ATA) interface, but does it really mean "faster"? So is the speed of HDD still depends on the rpm or HDD itself?

Yes. A 7200rpm drive still only spins at 7200rpms, but since the total bus speed is faster, you can get better throughput on multiple drives if you're writing to them at the same time (useful with RAID and such).

I'm not aware that there are any "benefits" to the system itself, other than the improved airflow.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060917 Firefox/1.5.0.7 (mmoy CE K8M-X19)

[Pu7o]

In other words, if you can get an IDE hard drive cheaper than its SATA counterpart, you might as well go for it.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/312.8 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/312.6

[Antony]

ATA/100 is sufficient for 7200 rpm hard disk, right?

In other words, if you can get an IDE hard drive cheaper than its SATA counterpart, you might as well go for it.

Yes, IDE hard drives are cheaper than SATA, and still have more support. However, not all systems are capable of installing IDE (if SATA interface are the only available options) and vice versa.

I am really interested to know the "benefit" of SATA over IDE.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.5) Gecko/20060723 Firefox/1.5.0.5

[Don_HH2K]

I am really interested to know the "benefit" of SATA over IDE.

Like I said, it's mostly total bus speed. You don't need 3Gb/sec throughput for one drive, I'll agree; the performance increase comes with multiple drives.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060917 Firefox/1.5.0.7 (mmoy CE K8M-X19)

[Antony]

I found this article, PATA vs. SATA: Does it matter? by Jacob Farmer written in Feb 2004.

It pointed out clearly (from consumer's point of view) as long as the data gets transferred reliably, it does not matter which interface.

Most PCs from local PC shops (non-branded) still provide IDE HDD to cut the cost. Or they would make a fuss about SATA and charge customers more than the difference of SATA and PATA.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/418.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/419.3

[Pu7o]

Agreed. I do note, though, that Intel-based Macs come with SATA-based hard drives now (at least the iMac does).

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; pt-pt) AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/419.3

[Mandrake]

SATA is faster than PATA. With the same hard drive capacity, the same same ammount of cache the difference is easy to spot. Plus you've got new SATA drives supporting NCQ, something that you'll never seen on PATA drives.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20061021 Minefield/3.0a1