Jump to content


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.

Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.


Question About Serial Ata-150 & Serial Ata-300

  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 easycigarman39


  • Members
  • 17 posts
  • Location:Indiana
  • Local time:08:07 PM

Posted 19 December 2005 - 01:33 AM

I understand that Serial ATA is here and replacing IDE data transfer. I also recently discovered that there are two different types of Serial ATA, 150 and 300. I understand that SATA 300 is greater data transfer than SATA 150. My question, however, is this: Are the physical connection interfaces the same between SATA 150 and SATA 300 or are they different? Are we talking about two different physical connection interfaces between these two? If so, then I would assume that in order to hook up a SATA 300 hard drive to a mainboard geared for SATA 150 I would need some sort of controller card or something--in the same way that IDE-to-Serial needs a controller card. If they're different, my guess is that motherboards will eventually have both interface connections available--leaving out the floppy and IDE interface connections.

The reason I ask is that I'm wanting to put togther a SATA-based, low-end 64-bit computer at some point in time, but may opt to waite until SATA 300 becomes more the norm. I would like to avoid the use of a controller card. I know that computer technology is always improving and changing and whenever I build this system, a few months or so later it will be technically outclassed I'm sure by some newer technology or something. That I accept, but I'd still like to have an understanding on the SATA 150/300 interface difference, if there is one, so as to avoid the need for a controller card at the time the unit is built.

I've asked some store clerks in computer departments these questions but none of them had an answer.

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)


#2 Mr Alpha

Mr Alpha

  • Members
  • 1,875 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland
  • Local time:03:07 AM

Posted 19 December 2005 - 07:20 AM

SATA 150 and SATA 300 (aka SATA II) are compatible. You can mix and match however you want.
"Anyone who cannot form a community with others, or who does not need to because he is self-sufficient [...] is either a beast or a god." Aristotle
Intel Core 2 Quad | XFX 780i SLI | 8GB Corsair | Gigabyte GeForce 8800GTX | Auzentech X-Fi Prelude| Logitech G15 | Logitech MX Revolution | LG Flatron L2000C | Logitech Z-5500 Digital

#3 welco


  • Members
  • 130 posts
  • Local time:06:07 PM

Posted 19 December 2005 - 06:32 PM

SATA or serial ATA seems to be the direction hard drives are going these days so it is a wise decision to make the switch. As for differences between the two there aren't too many. Aside from NCQ, native command queuing, which allows the hard drive to determine the easiest way for it to execute the commands given this isn't fully utilized yet, you aren't going to notice a huge difference. This is becaue the hard drive spindle can only handle say 50 mb/s this can't change no matter the transfer rate. Not to say SATA is useless, there is lots of stuff it can do that IDE can't. One example is NCQ they also can't run fifteen drives off of one IDE controller and they consume alot more power than a SATA drive.

Edited by welco, 19 December 2005 - 06:35 PM.

AMD Athlon 64 3000+ Venice
1GB GeIL Value Memory Looking for something better...
Hitachi 7K80
Jaton 6600GT
400W HiPRO

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users