SATA or Udma for Audio Drive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Booda
  • Start date Start date
Booda

Booda

Master of the Obvious
I need to get a New drive for my Audio files and have read where SATA can cause headaches on the install and the performance is not that much better than Udma 133... AND I've also read that it's Much faster and the way to go. Which is it? If there isn't a significant performance increase I don't see why Rock the boat since my system ran great B4?

What should I get IYO? Any particular Brand or model?

So far over the years I've had a IBM die (deathstar no wonder) and most recently a Seagate. I've got a Maxtor that has been kicking for 8 years or so... Even though my Seagate died I'll probably get another one unless I find a great deal on a Maxtor.

Thanks,
B.
 
Ok, one more question...

What's the diffrence between SATA-150 and SATA 3Gbs?
 
Reminds me of the SCSI vs IDE arguments of a few years ago. I think pretty much all modern drives are up to the task these days, and the limiting factor isn't so much the interface as how fast the data can be pulled off the platters.
 
Simlpy put...look at individual drives. Interfaces (as in SATA vs. parallel) are far more than what the hard drives are physically capable of. Go look at hard drive reviews (check out the stuff at storagereview.com) and figure out what's best. Honestly, there's a lot of parity within classes of hard drives, but there are often standouts in particular categories (raw scores, windows boot up time, power consumption and noise) and really the only way to figure those out is to pore over the reviews.
 
I agree that the interface is no longer the limiting factor, unless you are running multiple drives - then SATA is the way to go because each bus is dedicated. ;)

You want at least 7200 RPM drive, preferably 10K. 15K hard drives make too much noise, and also run extremely hot. Best to have a fan on a 10K drive too - they last much longer that way.

You want a drive with at least 8MB cache, and less than 10ms seek time.

IMO, WD and Maxtor drives blow. Seagate all the way. ;)
 
Kiauma said:
I agree that the interface is no longer the limiting factor, unless you are running multiple drives - then SATA is the way to go because each bus is dedicated. ;)

You want at least 7200 RPM drive, preferably 10K. 15K hard drives make too much noise, and also run extremely hot. Best to have a fan on a 10K drive too - they last much longer that way.

You want a drive with at least 8MB cache, and less than 10ms seek time.

IMO, WD and Maxtor drives blow. Seagate all the way. ;)
Click to expand...

With proper caching in the OS, none of this should really matter. At 192kHz/24, the slowest modern 7200 RPM drives can read 44 tracks concurrently on average.... :D
 
Maybe my terminology was off... I meant IDE Ultra 100/133 or SATA 150.

I'm not new to this but it has been a while since I needed to upgrade my Hard Drive. Yes, I know 7,200 is what to get... Since my last HD purchase SATA 150 came out and I guess it's really No Big Deal. If a ATA-100 or 133 reads and writes just as fast then there ya go. My MB and Power Supply both can accommodate the newer SATA... but from your responses there's no big performance increase.

BTW- My PC is a dedicated Audio Recording machine w/ 2 drives and I may even go 3 drives this time.

Thanks,
B.
 
Booda said:
I'm not new to this but it has been a while since I needed to upgrade my Hard Drive. Yes, I know 7,200 is what to get... Since my last HD purchase SATA 150 came out and I guess it's really No Big Deal. If a ATA-100 or 133 reads and writes just as fast then there ya go. My MB and Power Supply both can accommodate the newer SATA... but from your responses there's no big performance increase.
Click to expand...

Theoretically TCQ can make a difference under some workloads, and IIRC, that's only available as (an optional) part of the SATA spec. Beyond that... probably no noticeable difference....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top