Greg Wallace wrote:
I was just looking at the Seagate web site. Looks like they don't make an Ultra ATA/133 drive (ATA/100 but not ATA/133). I did some web browsing on the 133 and, apparently, this was first introduced by Maxtor. I also saw a tech article that seemed to indicate that many PCs can't make use of the extra throughput anyway. That article was a bit old, so I just wondered if there really is any performance advantage of a 133 vs a 100?
I'm pretty sure the difference is little more than theoretical. ATA133 hit about the same time as SATA150, so some manufacturers never have bothered to embrace ATA133. My newest motherboard (http://www.pcchips.com.tw/PCCWeb/Products/ProductsDetail.aspx?MenuID=92&...) has Intel's ICH6 chipset, which has a PATA max of 100, along with 150 for SATA. That motherboard also has PATA RAID, IT8212F @ 133. Here are some benchmarks I just recorded, but I don't know whether the PATA Hitachi is 100 or 133. Probably it is 100. http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/tmp/RESUL473.HTML Samsumg SATA & Hitachi SATA http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/tmp/RESUL475.HTML Hitachi SATA & Hitachi PATA (on IT8212F) http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/tmp/RESUL476.HTML Hitachi PATA (on ICH6) & Hitachi SATA -- "Love your neighbor as yourself." Matthew 22:39 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/