# Does which SATA port you use effect boot time?



## EarthDog (Oct 24, 2019)

I saw something on the web (a user - cannot seem to find a reference) that said to be sure you put your sata drive on sata0 (first port) for the fastest boot times. The logic behind this statement was that the bios searches that port first. 

AFAIK, the native ports are initialized first and then any third party controllers. So it makes sense the native ports can boot faster (negligibly), but isnt the boot order determined by what the user has set in the bios? Meaning I can put a drive in sata4 (so long as it is native controller) and the boot time remains the same than if I put it on sata0, right? In other words, the bios doesnt 'look'for boot drives...you TELL IT where to look. 

Thoughts and links, please!


----------



## cucker tarlson (Oct 24, 2019)

you tell it where to look.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 24, 2019)

BIOS doesn't advance until it enumerates all of the ports so SATA0 or SATA9, it doesn't matter--time is the same because it's checking them all.

In regards to extra controllers...if you don't intend to boot from it then simply remove it from the boot order so the BIOS just initializes the card and doesn't scan the drives for a boot information.  Even if you do boot an extra controller, the time isn't in actually booting, it's in waiting for user input on configuration.  If you disable the boot config screen then its boot time is also negligible.


Simply culling the boot list is the smart thing to do.  If the machine has Windows 10 only on it, make the first and only boot item Windows Boot Manager.


If POST is taking more than a few seconds (assuming no RAID card with a 10 second timer) then there's a problem.  If it's not doing that, it's fine, fuhgeddaboudit.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 24, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> BIOS doesn't advance until it enumerates all of the ports so SATA0 or SATA9, it doesn't matter--time is the same because it's checking them all.
> 
> In regards to extra controllers...if you don't intend to boot from it then simply remove it from the boot order so the BIOS just initializes the card and doesn't scan the drives for a boot information.  Even if you do boot an extra controller, the time isn't in actually booting, it's in waiting for user input on configuration.  If you disable the boot config screen then its boot time is also negligible.


Typically, you need to disable the controller for the second part, otherwise it still initializes/adds time to POST.

The thread isnt so much about how to lower boot times (but thanks!) as it is the concept of if there is a difference in boot times between native ports as this person asserts.


----------



## Aquinus (Oct 24, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Typically, you need to disable the controller for the second part, otherwise it still initializes/adds time to POST.


My motherboard allows for partial initialization where only devices necessary for boot are done at POST time. I forget what the setting itself is called though.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 24, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> My motherboard allows for partial initialization where only devices necessary for boot are done at POST time. I forget what the setting itself is called though.


Fast boot, I believe?


----------



## Aquinus (Oct 24, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Fast boot, I believe?


No, mine doesn't support that. It's near the setting for the boot order and whatnot. Give me a moment and I'll see if I can find it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 24, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> ...if there is a difference in boot times between native ports as this person asserts.


The only way there would be is if there's something physically wrong with one of the ports.  Of hundreds of computers, I've only seen that happen twice.  The problem was only obvious because of erasing drives so I had 1:1 machines to compare erase times: outliers stand out like a sore thumb.  Under normal circumstances, the outliers would have gone unnoticed.

If the ports are all functionally normally, there is no difference (again, because POST queries them all before moving on)


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 24, 2019)

That is what I thought but wanted to crowd source some knowledge. I feel even more confident in what I shared then.


----------



## Aquinus (Oct 24, 2019)

I lied. It’s an option inside of Fast Boot. I thought it was called something different.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 24, 2019)

Most motherboards don't have that kind of specificity with Fast Boot. :x


----------



## Aquinus (Oct 24, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Most motherboards don't have that kind of specificity with Fast Boot. :x


Good to know my ~8 year old motherboard still has some balls.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 24, 2019)

I'm surprised X79 had it. When I said it earlier, I didn't look at your hardware. I don't recall when fast boot was first used in BIOS'.


----------



## Aquinus (Oct 24, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I'm surprised X79 had it. When I said it earlier, I didn't look at your hardware. I don't recall when fast boot was first used in BIOS'.


This is what happens when you spend $380 on a motherboard. The P9X79 Deluxe has been a great board.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 24, 2019)

Bios Scans hardware for devices (enabled).
then hands over to OS
OS bootstraps (checks Bios) and loads Devices ( software settings)
OS loads to desk top


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 24, 2019)

Depending on the board the location Port can matter...
Take the Intel Z77 for instance.
It has 2 built in SATA controller's..
SATA 3 on ports 0 and 1 and ports 2-5 are SATA 2

Ports 0 and 1 are always faster. Because they are under a faster controller.
Many many stupid ASRock and cheap MSI boards have done this to.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 24, 2019)

jmcslob said:


> Depending on the board the location Port can matter...
> Take the Intel Z77 for instance.
> It has 2 built in SATA controller's..
> SATA 3 on ports 0 and 1 and ports 2-5 are SATA 2
> ...


This is correct, but not the point .

I specifically mentioned native vs. 3rd party earlier and port/controller speeds are assumed to be the same, of course.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 24, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> This is correct, but not the point. I specifically mentioned native vs. 3rd party and port/controller speeds are assumed to be the same, of course.


Oh yeah.. Lol
It wouldn't matter on the same controller.
The same process takes place regardless of which Port is used.
All ports initialize at the same time then it happens exactly as @dorsetknob explained


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 24, 2019)

jmcslob said:


> then it happens exactly as @dorsetknob explained


I think that is missing a step... 





Anyway, these are the assertions made which brought me here....


> The first SATA drive port will give the fastest OS boot up......
> 
> Yes on some motherboards BIOS looks for the OS on the first SATA1 port and has a delay timer so it won't miss the OS drive boot, before BIOS searches for the next SATA 2 port to boot the OS drive, then the BIOS keeps looking through the rest of SATA ports for the OS boot drive.........
> 
> However, most modern motherboards on each POST the BIOS automatically searches for the boot sector on a drive to find the boot order and will take more time searching through all the drives starting at the first SATA port. Nothing on a computer is done all at the same time except parallel processing, it's done with steps on a programming tree.



and one reply...


> My understanding is the bios will find the device on whatever native port in the same time regardless. As in, as soon as the integrated SATA controller on the chipset is initialized, it will boot from whatever the boot order is you set in the bios. It doesnt wait to 'see' a drive or search for one in any order... its TOLD where to pull boot info from by what the user sets in the bios. Either windows manager (which is not a sata port if you look in your bios and boot order) or the actual drive (older windows). It's not like they come online in any order


----------



## natr0n (Oct 24, 2019)

On my server board it has a red sata and rest are black. I always thought it was required to boot from that but it isnt in reality.

Bios controls boot order basically.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 24, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I think that is missing a step...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The first is just wrong.
It doesn't do any searching it just does what it's told and goes there.
Even if it didn't we're talking about .000000000001 seconds...
I guess if the OS drive was missing it's MBR it would go looking but that's different altogether.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Oct 24, 2019)

Depending on the motherboard and its age, the time difference is in [less than] milliseconds for the more recent motherboards vs motherboards from say 2004.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 24, 2019)

natr0n said:


> On my server board it has a red sata and rest are black. I always thought it was required to boot from that but it isnt in reality.
> 
> Bios controls boot order basically.


This may be how the board shows you which are on what controllers.



jmcslob said:


> The first is just wrong.
> It doesn't do any searching it just does what it's told and goes there.
> Even if it didn't we're talking about .000000000001 seconds...
> I guess if the OS drive was missing it's MBR it would go looking but that's different altogether.


It would go looking to the next drive in the boot order... still what YOU/BIOS tells it to do. 



DeathtoGnomes said:


> Depending on the motherboard and its age, the time difference is in [less than] milliseconds for the more recent motherboards vs motherboards from say 2004.


So, are you saying there IS actually a difference??????????????????????


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 24, 2019)

Bios takes nano-seconds to scan/load Devices
Boot order is Determind by Bios (subject to OS setup).
System Boots to OS on defined Drive ( if no OS then it proceeds's to next Drive).
BOOT Order is not necessarily same as Bootable Drive.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 24, 2019)

dorsetknob said:


> Bios takes nano-seconds to scan/load Devices
> Boot order is Determind by Bios (subject to OS setup).
> System Boots to OS on defined Drive ( if no OS then it proceeds's to next Drive).
> BOOT Order is not necessarily same as Bootable Drive.


that's better... 

Though what is "(subject to OS setup)"?


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Oct 24, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> So, are you saying there IS actually a difference??????????????????????


go into the BIOS and disable fastboot and watch the load screen. Then watch again after clearing NVRAM (Clear CMOS? NOTE: I think its spelled that way, its been a while since the old win98 PC died.). After that boot, the BIOS will "Recall" what is where and boot faster. 

I expect that if you repeat this process with the SATA plugged into various slots you might be see the difference visually. NOT 100% sure its been a couple decades since I delved this deep.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 24, 2019)

Sata port 0 boots to win 10
Sata port 1 boots to win 8.1
Sata port 2 Boots to win 7
Sata Port  3 Boots from USB/Optical Drive

at Bios Initialization Press F11/F12 to select Boot Drive

or 1st Boot Drive has Bootstrap loader to Select OS to load.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Oct 24, 2019)

dorsetknob said:


> Sata port 0 boots to win 10
> Sata port 1 boots to win 8.1
> Sata port 2 Boots to win 7
> Sata Port Boots from USB/Optical Drive
> ...


interesting way to multi-boot. hmmph never considered this way.


----------



## The Egg (Oct 24, 2019)

A 3rd party SATA controller can take additional time, as well as have its own BIOS/Firmware screen with a pre-set delay during boot.  

In almost every case, a 3rd party controller is going to be inferior to the main chipset controller, so avoid using them unless absolutely necessary.  I usually disable them in the BIOS as part of my initial setup.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 24, 2019)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> go into the BIOS and disable fastboot and watch the load screen. Then watch again after clearing NVRAM (Clear CMOS? NOTE: I think its spelled that way, its been a while since the old win98 PC died.). After that boot, the BIOS will "Recall" what is where and boot faster.
> 
> I expect that if you repeat this process with the SATA plugged into various slots you might be see the difference visually. NOT 100% sure its been a couple decades since I delved this deep.


All you see are things initializing and what is on the port. I am not sure what you are trying to say here at all. As I understand things, It doesn't 'recall' anything. It initializes the ports and reads what is on the end. After it is done with POST/initialization, it then looks for boot order which is determined by the BIOS/user.



The Egg said:


> A 3rd party SATA controller can take additional time, as well as have its own BIOS/Firmware screen with a pre-set delay during boot.
> 
> In almost every case, a 3rd party controller is going to be inferior to the main chipset controller, so avoid using them unless absolutely necessary.  I usually disable them in the BIOS as part of my initial setup.


Yes.. that is a given.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 24, 2019)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> interesting way to multi-boot. hmmph never considered this way.


Its how i have always done multi boot
a corrupted HD does not stop me immediately using Computer


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 24, 2019)

Can we keep this to the subject at hand..


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Oct 24, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> All you see are things initializing and what is on the port. I am not sure what you are trying to say here at all. It doesn't 'recall' anything. It initializes the ports and reads what is on the end. After it is done with POST/initialization, it then looks for boot order which is determined by the BIOS/user.


i may have got that part confused ...


----------



## Solid State Soul ( SSS ) (Oct 24, 2019)

A motherboard bios is reading all the sata ports during POST, however it is true that native ports are faster than the ones run by a third party controller


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 24, 2019)

Solid State Soul ( SSS ) said:


> A motherboard bios is reading all the sata ports during POST, however it is true that native ports are faster than the ones run by a third party controller


Indeed, but again that wasn't the question here. 

The question as outlined clearly in the first post asks if there is a difference on the same controller, just different ports.


----------



## arbiter (Oct 24, 2019)

Solid State Soul ( SSS ) said:


> A motherboard bios is reading all the sata ports during POST, however it is true that native ports are faster than the ones run by a third party controller


Yea if your board has extra ports on it which usually are color coated so native build in controller are 6 of 1 color and what ever # is another. Mine has 8 total, 6 are intel and last 2 are asmedia or something. You want to use intel ones since they generally right to cpu without 3rd party chip to go through.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 24, 2019)

CMOS is why you don't have to wait for the controller to select the proper drive or set the date.
Without the CMOS (battery) then yes it would be slower to boot because you would have to manually set your devices in boot up.
I believe the last PC without CMOS was prior to HDD's

I remember waiting for the PC to check the memory then a: drive 3.5", b: 5.25" and finally C: the OS drive... And back then HDD priority was set by the cable and a jumper on the HDD'S.. One was master and the other was slave.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 24, 2019)

jmcslob said:


> I remember waiting for the PC to check the memory then a: drive 3.5", b: 5.25" and finally C: the OS drive... And back then HDD priority was set by the cable and a jumper on the HDD'S.. One was master and the other was slave.


Ahh, the days of IDE platters......

*looks off into distance reflecting...............





*snaps out of it, remembers this is about SATA ports and boot speeds.

  



Ok, well, looks like my thinking was about right. If anyone has anything else to add about the subject in the title/1st post, by all means!


----------



## The Egg (Oct 24, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Indeed, but again that wasn't the question here.
> The question as outlined clearly in the first post asks if there is a difference on the same controller, just different ports.


I would say no, or at least, not by any meaningful amount.  Motherboards will often have 1 or 2 native chipset ports which share resources with other devices.  I imagine it runs some sort of detection routine on these ports, which likely adds an imperceptible amount of time.  I don't know that a drive connected to one of these ports would necessarily take longer to initialize though.

It would take some scientific testing to know for sure.  And whatever you find might not necessarily apply to other boards.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 24, 2019)

The Egg said:


> I would say no, or at least, not by any meaningful amount.  Motherboards will often have 1 or 2 native chipset ports which share resources with other devices.  I imagine it runs some sort of detection routine on these ports, which likely adds an imperceptible amount of time.  I don't know that a drive connected to one of these ports would necessarily take longer to initialize though.
> 
> It would take some scientific testing to know for sure.  And whatever you find might not necessarily apply to other boards.


If SATA ports are disabled due to M.2 being used, nothing is plugged into them, but I bet even if there was that wouldn't matter.



In the end, I think the obvious that so long as you are using the native ports to the board boot times will not be different if booting from SATA0 or any other active SATA port (again on the native ports).


----------



## R-T-B (Oct 24, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> but isnt the boot order determined by what the user has set in the bios?



yes.


----------



## The Egg (Oct 24, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> If SATA ports are disabled due to M.2 being used, nothing is plugged into them, but I bet even if there was that wouldn't matter.
> In the end, I think the obvious that so long as you are using the native ports to the board boot times will not be different if booting from SATA0 or any other active SATA port (again on the native ports).


Pretty much.  Although.....some chipsets (like the P67 from my Sandy Bridge rig) had two SATA 6.0Gbit ports, and then four at SATA 3.0Gbit, but all part of the native chipset.  In theory this could result in minor differences (besides bandwidth, maybe one set is initialized first), but again, nothing that I would expect to be meaningful to human perception.  

Also, all current and future chipsets should be SATA 6.0Gbit for all ports, so that scenario has lost most relevance.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 24, 2019)

The latest reply...



> On every POST my BIOS automatically sets the boot order with finding the boot drive on any SATA port.



If I move my SATA boot drive from SATA 0 to SATA4, it doesn't change the boot order in my BIOS... anyone else? I'm not sure I even understand what that response means!!!

It moves down the line (boot 1, 2, etc) regardless of physical sata port connection, mirite?

Edit: ok.. funny. The context behind the original statement seems to reference the first boot. So, you swap from port x to port y, and on first boot it takes longer. Then of course each subsequent boot takes the same time as any other port. Communication... good times.


----------



## Aquinus (Oct 24, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> If I move my SATA boot drive from SATA 0 to SATA4, it doesn't change the boot order in my BIOS... anyone else? I'm not sure I even understand what that response means!!!
> 
> It moves down the line (boot 1, 2, etc) regardless of physical sata port connection, mirite?


I think that has a lot to do with how the machine is setup. In my case, all but the 500GB drive is in a SATA RAID array. Moving disks around is practically transparent behind the away as the controller figures it out based on the RAID information stored on disk. I guess it's possible that some motherboards remember the drive info so if the disk ever disappears, the BIOS can tell. If that's the case, the boot order might stay the same. If the computer was 14 years old or something, I wouldn't expect that though.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 24, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> I think that has a lot to do with how the machine is setup. In my case, all but the 500GB drive is in a SATA RAID array. Moving disks around is practically transparent behind the away as the controller figures it out based on the RAID information stored on disk. I guess it's possible that some motherboards remember the drive info so if the disk ever disappears, the BIOS can tell. If that's the case, the boot order might stay the same. If the computer was 14 years old or something, I wouldn't expect that though.



See edit.


----------

