ATA vs SATA for Master Drive



I have three drives: 640GB SATA, 320GB SATA and 320GB ATA.
I have three "positions": Master (just OS), Mule (Internal, holds movies, work, documents, etc.) and external (I have an external enclosure, but it can only work with SATA disks)

I want to keep the 640GB SATA as the Mule (internal for storage) because, well, it's really big and I have lots of stuff.

My question is: (preface: )I know SATA disks are faster but (question: ) if all I use my master drive for is to hold the OS (not documents, files, movies, etc.) will I notice a difference between having the master be an ATA vs SATA? My biggest concern is playing games. (If I used ATA disk but installed everything onto the 640GB SATA mule would that work as fast as if I installed them onto master SATA disk? Like.. kept my Program Files folder on the mule? Would that have any drawbacks? Like many default install folders (AppData/WINDOWS etc) being on the master OS drive?)

Also I'd rather not use my 640 as the master with the OS. I screw around with my OS a lot and it isn't uncommon for me to mess things up so bad I have to reinstall, keeping things on a backup 24/7 instead of having to back them up every time is.. nice.

Thank you very much,


Sep 15, 2009
Why don't you keep the 640 as the OS, but make a smaller partition for the OS (say 320 GB) and another partition to store files?
You would have two internal 320 partitions instead of one, but you'd have the same space, you get the most speed, and if you ever have to reinstall you don't have to wipe the whole HDD.
I would put the 640 SATA in the enclosure, use the 320 SATA for the OS, and use the 320 ATA for your mule. Then your external backup could hold everything on the other HDDs, you have the 320 SATA for the OS and game installs, and the 320 ATA for movies, files, etc.

Similar threads