diference between sata and sata2

[pt]

the title says it all, wich is?

 

[zekrahminator]

SATA- max of 150MB/s
SATA2- max of 300MB/s.
Make sure you research a drive before buying it in SATA2 flavor...most of the time a drive won't reach it's maximum bandwidth at all . Oh yes and there's also various controllers that can bottleneck a hard drive. On my 939Dual-SATA2, my hard drive got about 110MB/s transfer speed (HDTach). After my 939Dual-SATA2 got fried by my PSU, my Nforce4 powered motherboard gives my SATA2 hard drive a good 170MB/s bandwidth. Not like I notice the difference on a day to day basis...lol.

 

[pt]

SATA- max of 150MB/s
SATA2- max of 300MB/s.
Make sure you research a drive before buying it in SATA2 flavor...most of the time a drive won't reach it's maximum bandwidth at all . Oh yes and there's also various controllers that can bottleneck a hard drive. On my 939Dual-SATA2, my hard drive got about 110MB/s transfer speed (HDTach). After my 939Dual-SATA2 got fried by my PSU, my Nforce4 powered motherboard gives my SATA2 hard drive a good 170MB/s bandwidth. Not like I notice the difference on a day to day basis...lol.

i don't think that is the diference since my new 160gb hitachi sata has 300mb/s, it had a jumper and there are more sata drives that use 300mb/s

 

[pt]

here is the proof
sry, it a 160gb seagate Sata, not a hitachi

 

[Tatty_Two]

I think his point was however that although SATA2 are rated at 300MB per second that is actually the max speed and rarely in normal day to day applications do you get anywhere near that speed, in fact more often than not nearer to the 150MB per sec.

When reviews and manufacturers bench SATA2 drives they tend to do so in "Lab conditions" pretty synthetically with apps that are specifically written to load drives which certainly shows their potential, it's just whether you reach that potential in normal apps. In part your graph example goes to show that as its speed is nearer to SATA than SATA2 but yes, of course it is faster, no doubt about that.

 

[pt]

but what is the diference, since some sata hdd's can have 300mb/s of bandwith?

 

[Tatty_Two]

A SATA (not SATA2) on its own has a max bandwidth of 150, sometimes people refer to straight SATA as 300MB acheivable, that for example could be within a system where you have 2 SATA drives and a dual core processor running 2 simultaneous apps (1 to each drive)give a bandwidth throughput into the CPU of 300MB per second in theory, does that make sense? SATA2, standalone = 300MB per sec transfer speed MAX. Unless I have got it wrong tho. So what I am saying is that a single SATA (non 2) cannot have a max bandwidth higher than 150.

I am not an expert on this so would welcome someone more knowledgable than me to put me straight!

 

[pt]

A SATA (not SATA2) on its own has a max bandwidth of 150, sometimes people refer to straight SATA as 300MB acheivable, that for example could be within a system where you have 2 SATA drives and a dual core processor running 2 simultaneous apps (1 to each drive)give a bandwidth throughput into the CPU of 300MB per second in theory, does that make sense? SATA2, standalone = 300MB per sec transfer speed MAX. Unless I have got it wrong tho. So what I am saying is that a single SATA (non 2) cannot have a max bandwidth higher than 150.

amd 3000+ (single core)
single sata hdd
bandwith: 200mb/s

anyone cares to explain?

Edit: the shop were i bough it, the saler (a friend of mine) told me has 5 sata at home and most of them have 300mb/s max bandwith

 

[ktr]

most hdd can only go around 60 to 65 mb/s...so 150mbits/s or 300mbits/s on sata is over kill. ide (which is 133mbits/s) gets around 66 mb/s...so pretty much there is no bottleneck for ide.

 

[Tatty_Two]

PT, I am not disputing what the seller said to your friend but he may have meant a max of 300MB throughput based on the dual core example I mentioned, there aint no system on the planet (well home user anyways) that could possible have even 4 drives running at 300MB per second, even when a quad core is available there is just no way a system can yet handle 1200MB per sec thruput, in reality each drive would be bottlenecked to about 80MB per sec and that was really my origional point, it does not really matter what the "capability" is if you dont have a system to reap the rewards of that capability.

Edit: What i meant in my first line here was they could be running at 300MB but the system is not going to be able to utilise it so you dont actually get it at all.

 

[pt]

PT, I am not disputing what the seller said to your friend but he may have meant a max of 300MB throughput based on the dual core example I mentioned, there aint no system on the planet (well home user anyways) that could possible have even 4 drives running at 300MB per second, even when a quad core is available there is just no way a system can yet handle 1200MB per sec thruput, in reality each drive would be bottlenecked to about 80MB per sec and that was really my origional point, it does not really matter what the "capability" is if you dont have a system to reap the rewards of that capability.

Edit: What i meant in my first line here was they could be running at 300MB but the system is not going to be able to utilise it so you dont actually get it at all.

i know they will never fully utilize it, i just want to know wich is the diference between sata and sata2 since they could have the same bandwith, why was sata2 created?

 

[Tatty_Two]

i know they will never fully utilize it, i just want to know wich is the diference between sata and sata2 since they could have the same bandwith, why was sata2 created?

Ok, working on my theory that you could possibly get 300MB per sec out of 2 SATA (150) to a dual core running simultaneous apps just look at it this way, do the same with SATA 2 and you potentially get 600MB per sec (although thats synthetic), now do you see?

So as a SINGLE drive SATA=150MB bandwidth max
SATA2 =300MB bandwidth max

 

[pt]

Ok, working on my theory that you could possibly get 300MB per sec out of 2 SATA (150) to a dual core running simultaneous apps just look at it this way, do the same with SATA 2 and you potentially get 600MB per sec (although thats synthetic), now do you see?

i still don't get it
if i had 2 sata hdd that can have 300mb/s (not sata2) and a dual core i would reach the 600mb/s too (not fully utilized)

 

[Tatty_Two]

i still don't get it
if i had 2 sata hdd that can have 300mb/s (not sata2) and a dual core i would reach the 600mb/s too (not fully utilized)[/Q

No you would not! the max you would have is 150 x 2 = 300, a single drive can not do more than 150! the reference to 300MB achevable with SATA (not 2) is purely 2 SATA running simultaneously with a dual core = 300 combined thruput. A sata (not 2) channel on your Mainboard does not have greater than 150MBPS capacity end of story. Motherboards that specifically support SATA2 have the 300MBPS capability its not just the drive its the link to the CPU also.

Phew, I have gottta sleep, as I said I am not an expert so I may have got some things here wrong, someone will come in with more knowledge than me on this particular subject and put me straight if I am wrong.

 

[pt]

i still don't get it
if i had 2 sata hdd that can have 300mb/s (not sata2) and a dual core i would reach the 600mb/s too (not fully utilized)[/Q

No you would not! the max you would have is 150 x 2 = 300, a single drive can not do more than 150! the reference to 300MB achevable with SATA (not 2) is purely 2 SATA running simultaneously with a dual core = 300 combined thruput. A sata (not 2) channel on your Mainboard does not have greater than 150MBPS capacity end of story. Motherboards that specifically support SATA2 have the 300MBPS capability its not just the drive its the link to the CPU also.

Phew, I have gottta sleep, as I said I am not an expert so I may have got some things here wrong, someone will come in with more knowledge than me on this particular subject and put me straight if I am wrong.

so how do you explain the print screen of hdtach?
i have a single core cpu, and a single sata hdd (non sata 2)

 

[trog100]

i think the spin speed of the drive and its physical limitations govern the real speed.. the potential speed of the interface between drive and PC has little to do with real speeds untill someone re-invents the hardrive..

two drives one sata one pata.. and both well below the theoretical 150 never mind the 300..

trog

ps.. the red one is my pata boot up drive the blue sata one from the HDtach database..

 

[ktr]

look at that! the pata and sata average read speed are the same. good screen shot to prove there is no speed difference between pata and sata.