Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Serial ATA and AGP 8X motherboards

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the faster-is-better-when-you-don't-crash dept.

bjschrock writes "Tech-Junkie reports that Asus is rolling out new motherboards with the new Serial ATA interface, along with AGP 8X support. Serial ATA will soon become pretty popular with the release of new hardware like the Seagate Baracudda ATA V hard drive, that sports a 8MB cache. The main advantage of Serial ATA, besides a slight speed increase, is the much smaller cable and the ability to hot-swap."

3 of 339 comments (clear)

  1. Why don't we see 10K drives? by Guspaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can see no reason for 10,000RPM and 15,000RPM drives to be SCSI-only anymore. consumer technologies like ATA133 or SerialATA are giving consumer drives bandwidth that they can't hope to consume. Do these 10K and 15K RPM drives really need a SCSI connection? What's the point of pushing faster and faster consumer bus connections if manufacturers are unwilling to take advantage of them with faster drives.

    Regards, Guspaz.

    1. Re:Why don't we see 10K drives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Probably due to heat issues. High RPM SCSI Drives go into server class machines with lots of fans and (usually) climate controlled raised floor locations. They are also noisy.

      I'd imagine most consumers don't have adequate cooling for those drives and it would be expensive to keep warranty replacing them. Not to mention, cheaper IDE drives would steal away sales from (I suspect) more profitable SCSI equipment.

    2. Re:Why don't we see 10K drives? by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The main reason is because 10k drives aren't terribly durable. They need a fan assembly pointing at them or they get too hot and won't last a year. Also, you don't really see the benefits of high speed drives until you throw them in a RAID array. People are getting tired of their computers sounding like jet engines.

      Another of ATA's big problems is that yes, it has the bandwidth to handle a fast drive, but not more than one. SCSI supports concurrent reads and writes, where ATA swaps them off. In reality you'll never see the 133 mbps in an ATA133 setup; where you'll come a lot closer with LVD160 SCSI. Also, the more traffic ATA eats up, the more CPU it eats (ever noticed how burning CDs on an ATA burner will bog your machine down?)