Hello,

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Hello,

Will the Asus A8V Deluxe support SATA II?

TY

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Richard K Rabbat wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Will the Asus A8V Deluxe support SATA II?

There is no such thing as SATA II.

If you mean, will it support second generation with a maximum transfer speed of 3Gb/s, yes, since they are backwards compatible, like USB2

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Hi Ben,

This is what I found on www.newegg.com web site.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822145088 , the
harddrive depicted here is a SATA II drive which means it transfers at twice
the speed of SATA I. I was if the A8V Deluxe supports SATAII.



"Ben Pope" <benpope81@_REMOVE_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115494401.1c88a5178214cc848ea0e04c565d2efc@teranews...
> Richard K Rabbat wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Will the Asus A8V Deluxe support SATA II?
>
> There is no such thing as SATA II.
>
> If you mean, will it support second generation with a maximum transfer
speed of 3Gb/s, yes, since they are backwards compatible, like USB2
>
> Ben
> --
> A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
> Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
> I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Richard K Rabbat wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> This is what I found on www.newegg.com web site.
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822145088 , the
> harddrive depicted here is a SATA II drive which means it transfers at twice
> the speed of SATA I. I was if the A8V Deluxe supports SATAII.

There is no such thing as a SATA II drive.

http://www.sata-io.org/namingguidelines.asp

That drive will work quite happily on either the VIA or Promise SATA controllers, using 150Gb/s interface speed, this will not impede it's speed even slightly.

In that sense, SATA is like USB: You can use a USB1 or 2 device on a USB 1 or 2 controller. I.e., you can use a SATA 1.5Gb/s or 3Gb/s drive on a 1.5 or 3Gb/s interface.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Venom]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

What does it matter? He is going to buy a deathstar and they don`t last long
anyhow.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Nah, changed my mind about the Deathstar,
Today I bought 2 Western Digital Raptor 74GB 10,000 RPM Harddrives Baby...



"Venom" <Viper@Mailhouse.com> wrote in message
news:cYdfe.6291$31.4372@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> What does it matter? He is going to buy a deathstar and they don`t last
long
> anyhow.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Today, I bought two Seagate 300GB NCQ drives that will absolutely *SMOKE*
your punt 10,000 RPM Raptors, *AND* I have over a half terabyte storage
compared to your puny 148GB.

Raptors are so yesterday....

Bobby

"Richard K Rabbat" <richardkr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hqOdnUozOaUdE-DfRVn-qw@comcast.com...
> Nah, changed my mind about the Deathstar,
> Today I bought 2 Western Digital Raptor 74GB 10,000 RPM Harddrives
> Baby...
>
>
>
> "Venom" <Viper@Mailhouse.com> wrote in message
> news:cYdfe.6291$31.4372@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> What does it matter? He is going to buy a deathstar and they don`t last
> long
>> anyhow.
>>
>>
>
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Hey Bobby,

What board are you hooking those up too? Is the Seagate SATA with NCQ realy
that much faster than the Raptor drives?
Did flop? If so I will return them and get the Seagate's. Reason for
buying the Raptor is so I can run multiple boot OS's and have them load
quick, but you are saying the Seagate with do better! Please explain, I
guess i'm not up to par and also have never used Seagate. Are they good
drives with a good/great track record?

Will my new board support NCQ?

PS: My new system will have:
Asus A8V Deluxe
AMD Athlon 3500+ (venice core)
1 Gig of corsair TWINX1024-3200C2PT
Geforce 6800 GT AGP 256 MB DDR
Etc...

Richard

"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
news:427da0e1$1_2@127.0.0.1...
> Today, I bought two Seagate 300GB NCQ drives that will absolutely *SMOKE*
> your punt 10,000 RPM Raptors, *AND* I have over a half terabyte storage
> compared to your puny 148GB.
>
> Raptors are so yesterday....
>
> Bobby
>
> "Richard K Rabbat" <richardkr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:hqOdnUozOaUdE-DfRVn-qw@comcast.com...
> > Nah, changed my mind about the Deathstar,
> > Today I bought 2 Western Digital Raptor 74GB 10,000 RPM Harddrives
> > Baby...
> >
> >
> >
> > "Venom" <Viper@Mailhouse.com> wrote in message
> > news:cYdfe.6291$31.4372@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >> What does it matter? He is going to buy a deathstar and they don`t last
> > long
> >> anyhow.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Your motherboard must support NCQ. The drives are the same cost as the
regular ATA drives. Yes, it is faster in general use. SATA is fast in
bursts, but does not offer significant improvement in sustained throughput.
SATA is good in situations where data integrity is paramount, but for speed
and ease of setup, NCQ is the way to go. Again, be aware that your
motherboard must support NCQ...you cannot add it a mobo that does not have
it.

I am running a preproduction board (from the manufacturer...I am in the
marketing industry) with an AMD Athlon64 4000+. I am bound by an NDA...but
there are boards already available that support NCQ.

Bobby


"Richard K Rabbat" <richardkr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jb2dnUhFW5HKUeDfRVn-oA@comcast.com...
> Hey Bobby,
>
> What board are you hooking those up too? Is the Seagate SATA with NCQ
> realy
> that much faster than the Raptor drives?
> Did flop? If so I will return them and get the Seagate's. Reason for
> buying the Raptor is so I can run multiple boot OS's and have them load
> quick, but you are saying the Seagate with do better! Please explain, I
> guess i'm not up to par and also have never used Seagate. Are they good
> drives with a good/great track record?
>
> Will my new board support NCQ?
>
> PS: My new system will have:
> Asus A8V Deluxe
> AMD Athlon 3500+ (venice core)
> 1 Gig of corsair TWINX1024-3200C2PT
> Geforce 6800 GT AGP 256 MB DDR
> Etc...
>
> Richard
>
> "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
> news:427da0e1$1_2@127.0.0.1...
>> Today, I bought two Seagate 300GB NCQ drives that will absolutely *SMOKE*
>> your punt 10,000 RPM Raptors, *AND* I have over a half terabyte storage
>> compared to your puny 148GB.
>>
>> Raptors are so yesterday....
>>
>> Bobby
>>
>> "Richard K Rabbat" <richardkr@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:hqOdnUozOaUdE-DfRVn-qw@comcast.com...
>> > Nah, changed my mind about the Deathstar,
>> > Today I bought 2 Western Digital Raptor 74GB 10,000 RPM Harddrives
>> > Baby...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Venom" <Viper@Mailhouse.com> wrote in message
>> > news:cYdfe.6291$31.4372@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> >> What does it matter? He is going to buy a deathstar and they don`t
>> >> last
>> > long
>> >> anyhow.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----
>
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Richard K Rabbat wrote:
> Hey Bobby,
>
> What board are you hooking those up too? Is the Seagate SATA with NCQ realy
> that much faster than the Raptor drives?

No. It's much slower. But it's also much more expensive.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2396&p=6

I have a Raptor 36GB and it absolutely storms through everything. In terms of raw sustained transfer rate, you don't notice a difference, but the latency (seek) makes a huge
difference.

I wouldn't buy 2 Raptors, unless I didn't need much storage or had money to burn... I have a 36GB Raptor, and a 250GB drive for other stuff.

> Did flop? If so I will return them and get the Seagate's. Reason for
> buying the Raptor is so I can run multiple boot OS's and have them load
> quick, but you are saying the Seagate with do better! Please explain, I
> guess i'm not up to par and also have never used Seagate. Are they good
> drives with a good/great track record?

Can't comment, never had a Seagate.

> Will my new board support NCQ?

I don't think so. I think you need an nForce4.

But NCQ won't gain you very much unless you have 100 users simultaneously hitting a large database on your system.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Two points....

Statistics can be used to support any viewpoint you choose. They should not
be used out of context.

Next, in burst mode...the speed in the cited example may have been faster,
but most users will not often require the burst mode. Sustained throughput
(gaming, video authoring/capture) is what is more important than burst
capability. And finally, the drives are the same price as the ATA
drives...but you do need a motherboard that supports NCQ.

Bobby

"Ben Pope" <benpope81@_REMOVE_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115559239.5bc1e49807f2ae6c4f3a53d787620780@teranews...
> Richard K Rabbat wrote:
>> Hey Bobby,
>>
>> What board are you hooking those up too? Is the Seagate SATA with NCQ
>> realy
>> that much faster than the Raptor drives?
>
> No. It's much slower. But it's also much more expensive.
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=2396&p=6
>
> I have a Raptor 36GB and it absolutely storms through everything. In
> terms of raw sustained transfer rate, you don't notice a difference, but
> the latency (seek) makes a huge difference.
>
> I wouldn't buy 2 Raptors, unless I didn't need much storage or had money
> to burn... I have a 36GB Raptor, and a 250GB drive for other stuff.
>
>> Did flop? If so I will return them and get the Seagate's. Reason for
>> buying the Raptor is so I can run multiple boot OS's and have them load
>> quick, but you are saying the Seagate with do better! Please explain, I
>> guess i'm not up to par and also have never used Seagate. Are they good
>> drives with a good/great track record?
>
> Can't comment, never had a Seagate.
>
>> Will my new board support NCQ?
>
> I don't think so. I think you need an nForce4.
>
> But NCQ won't gain you very much unless you have 100 users simultaneously
> hitting a large database on your system.
>
> Ben
> --
> A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
> Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
> I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

NoNoBadDog! wrote:
> Two points....
>
> Statistics can be used to support any viewpoint you choose. They should not
> be used out of context.

I'm not sure to what you refer.

> Next, in burst mode...the speed in the cited example may have been faster,
> but most users will not often require the burst mode. Sustained throughput
> (gaming, video authoring/capture) is what is more important than burst
> capability. And finally, the drives are the same price as the ATA
> drives...but you do need a motherboard that supports NCQ.

You do not need a board that supports NCQ to plug on one of those drives, it will work fine without.

I never said that burst is important, I specifically talked about sustained speeds ands latency.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

NoNoBadDog! wrote:
> Your motherboard must support NCQ. The drives are the same cost as the
> regular ATA drives. Yes, it is faster in general use. SATA is fast in
> bursts, but does not offer significant improvement in sustained throughput.

What are you talking about? Both the Raptor and the Seagate in question are SATA. We're not talking about Parallel ATA at all.

> SATA is good in situations where data integrity is paramount,

Presumably because the commands as well as the data are protected by CRC?

> but for speed and ease of setup, NCQ is the way to go.

NCQ is a feature of SATA, what has that to do with ease of setup?

> Again, be aware that your
> motherboard must support NCQ...you cannot add it a mobo that does not have
> it.

Yes you can, the drive will work quite happily in non NCQ mode. Plus you could add a controller to the motherboard that supports NCQ.

> I am running a preproduction board (from the manufacturer...I am in the
> marketing industry) with an AMD Athlon64 4000+.

You're in marketing eh? Well how come you don't understand the products then?

> I am bound by an NDA...but
> there are boards already available that support NCQ.

Yes, well done.

Anything using:
nVidia nForce4 Ultra:
http://www.nvidia.com/page/pg_20041015208345.html

nVidia nForce4 SLI (Intel and AMD versions):
http://www.nvidia.com/page/pg_20041015762843.html

nVidia nForce Professional:
http://www.nvidia.com/page/nfpro_workstation_features.html

Intel ICH6R/ICH6-M:
http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/301473.htm

Intel ICH7R:
http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/307013.htm

VIA VT8251:
(site down at the mo)

Any motherboard with:
Silicon Image 3132:
http://www.siimage.com/products/product.aspx?id=32

Promise:
SATAII150 TX2plus
SATAII150 TX4
FastTrak TX2200
FastTrak TX4200
.... (bored now)

Yes, huge secret who supports NCQ, careful not to let that one slip.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Hi Ben,

You said to NoNoBadDog!
>"You're in marketing eh? Well how come you don't understand the products
then?"

LOL,

PS: thank you both, you have brought about (where Ben Clarified) knowledge I
wasn't aware of. Therefore I've been educated.

I will stick with the Raptor Drives that I purchased NIB at a good price. I
also have 2 WD 2500 se JBRTL For Raid storage. So that should bring me well
above one half a Terabyte. Damn that is alot of space..

Ben, What does the SE designation mean on the WD 2500JBRTL se

Agai Thank you Ben you are quite knowlegeable, Thank you NoNoBadDog! for
bringing it out of Ben.

Richard


"Ben Pope" <benpope81@_REMOVE_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115580978.1a229ff1c0910537dd536f24fe55eeb7@teranews...
> NoNoBadDog! wrote:
> > Your motherboard must support NCQ. The drives are the same cost as the
> > regular ATA drives. Yes, it is faster in general use. SATA is fast in
> > bursts, but does not offer significant improvement in sustained
throughput.
>
> What are you talking about? Both the Raptor and the Seagate in question
are SATA. We're not talking about Parallel ATA at all.
>
> > SATA is good in situations where data integrity is paramount,
>
> Presumably because the commands as well as the data are protected by CRC?
>
> > but for speed and ease of setup, NCQ is the way to go.
>
> NCQ is a feature of SATA, what has that to do with ease of setup?
>
> > Again, be aware that your
> > motherboard must support NCQ...you cannot add it a mobo that does not
have
> > it.
>
> Yes you can, the drive will work quite happily in non NCQ mode. Plus you
could add a controller to the motherboard that supports NCQ.
>
> > I am running a preproduction board (from the manufacturer...I am in the
> > marketing industry) with an AMD Athlon64 4000+.
>
> You're in marketing eh? Well how come you don't understand the products
then?
>
> > I am bound by an NDA...but
> > there are boards already available that support NCQ.
>
> Yes, well done.
>
> Anything using:
> nVidia nForce4 Ultra:
> http://www.nvidia.com/page/pg_20041015208345.html
>
> nVidia nForce4 SLI (Intel and AMD versions):
> http://www.nvidia.com/page/pg_20041015762843.html
>
> nVidia nForce Professional:
> http://www.nvidia.com/page/nfpro_workstation_features.html
>
> Intel ICH6R/ICH6-M:
> http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/301473.htm
>
> Intel ICH7R:
> http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/307013.htm
>
> VIA VT8251:
> (site down at the mo)
>
> Any motherboard with:
> Silicon Image 3132:
> http://www.siimage.com/products/product.aspx?id=32
>
> Promise:
> SATAII150 TX2plus
> SATAII150 TX4
> FastTrak TX2200
> FastTrak TX4200
> ... (bored now)
>
> Yes, huge secret who supports NCQ, careful not to let that one slip.
>
> Ben
> --
> A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
> Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
> I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Rob]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Richard K Rabbat wrote:

>Hi Ben,
>
>You said to NoNoBadDog!
>
>
>>"You're in marketing eh? Well how come you don't understand the products
>>
>>
>then?"
>
>LOL,
>
>PS: thank you both, you have brought about (where Ben Clarified) knowledge I
>wasn't aware of. Therefore I've been educated.
>
>I will stick with the Raptor Drives that I purchased NIB at a good price. I
>also have 2 WD 2500 se JBRTL For Raid storage. So that should bring me well
>above one half a Terabyte. Damn that is alot of space..
>
>Ben, What does the SE designation mean on the WD 2500JBRTL se
>
>Agai Thank you Ben you are quite knowlegeable, Thank you NoNoBadDog! for
>bringing it out of Ben.
>
>Richard
>
>
>"Ben Pope" <benpope81@_REMOVE_gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1115580978.1a229ff1c0910537dd536f24fe55eeb7@teranews...
>
>
>>NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Your motherboard must support NCQ. The drives are the same cost as the
>>>regular ATA drives. Yes, it is faster in general use. SATA is fast in
>>>bursts, but does not offer significant improvement in sustained
>>>
>>>
>throughput.
>
>
>>What are you talking about? Both the Raptor and the Seagate in question
>>
>>
>are SATA. We're not talking about Parallel ATA at all.
>
>
>>>SATA is good in situations where data integrity is paramount,
>>>
>>>
>>Presumably because the commands as well as the data are protected by CRC?
>>
>>
>>
>>>but for speed and ease of setup, NCQ is the way to go.
>>>
>>>
>>NCQ is a feature of SATA, what has that to do with ease of setup?
>>
>>
>>
>>>Again, be aware that your
>>>motherboard must support NCQ...you cannot add it a mobo that does not
>>>
>>>
>have
>
>
>>>it.
>>>
>>>
>>Yes you can, the drive will work quite happily in non NCQ mode. Plus you
>>
>>
>could add a controller to the motherboard that supports NCQ.
>
>
>>>I am running a preproduction board (from the manufacturer...I am in the
>>>marketing industry) with an AMD Athlon64 4000+.
>>>
>>>
>>You're in marketing eh? Well how come you don't understand the products
>>
>>
>then?
>
>
>>>I am bound by an NDA...but
>>>there are boards already available that support NCQ.
>>>
>>>
>>Yes, well done.
>>
>>Anything using:
>>nVidia nForce4 Ultra:
>>http://www.nvidia.com/page/pg_20041015208345.html
>>
>>nVidia nForce4 SLI (Intel and AMD versions):
>>http://www.nvidia.com/page/pg_20041015762843.html
>>
>>nVidia nForce Professional:
>>http://www.nvidia.com/page/nfpro_workstation_features.html
>>
>>Intel ICH6R/ICH6-M:
>>http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/301473.htm
>>
>>Intel ICH7R:
>>http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/307013.htm
>>
>>VIA VT8251:
>>(site down at the mo)
>>
>>Any motherboard with:
>>Silicon Image 3132:
>>http://www.siimage.com/products/product.aspx?id=32
>>
>>Promise:
>>SATAII150 TX2plus
>>SATAII150 TX4
>>FastTrak TX2200
>>FastTrak TX4200
>>... (bored now)
>>
>>Yes, huge secret who supports NCQ, careful not to let that one slip.
>>
>>Ben
>>--
>>A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
>>Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
>>I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Hey Richard,

As you know the Raptors are 10K RPM with 8MB data cache. The Caviar
drives are 7200RPM, the difference being the SE (yes, it means Special
Edition) drives all have an 8MB data cache on them as opposed to the
standard 2 MB on plain Caviar's. The Protege' line is the 5400RPM
drives with 2MB cache.

Rob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Richard K Rabbat wrote:
>
> I will stick with the Raptor Drives that I purchased NIB at a good price. I
> also have 2 WD 2500 se JBRTL For Raid storage. So that should bring me well
> above one half a Terabyte. Damn that is alot of space..

I'm sure you'll make use of it!

> Ben, What does the SE designation mean on the WD 2500JBRTL se

Dunno. The 8MB cache answer sounds reasonable.

> Agai Thank you Ben you are quite knowlegeable

No worries... I like to understand things and make informed purchasing decisions, plus I like helping people out where I can.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

NCQ enabled motherboards allow the data to be pulled from the drives in a
non-sequential read, boosting speed *consistently*. While Raptors can be
faster in *BURST* modes, the NCQ is a real time, all the time benefit that
will enhance throughput *all the time*. a 7200 RPM NCQ drive will
outperform a 10,000 RPM Raptor in sustained usage, which means that in the
long run it will be faster...particularly for gaming, video and audio.

Despite what the Raptor "fanboys" will shout, the tests verify that overall
NCQ beat the Raptor.

Bobby

"Richard K Rabbat" <richardkr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jb2dnUhFW5HKUeDfRVn-oA@comcast.com...
> Hey Bobby,
>
> What board are you hooking those up too? Is the Seagate SATA with NCQ
> realy
> that much faster than the Raptor drives?
> Did flop? If so I will return them and get the Seagate's. Reason for
> buying the Raptor is so I can run multiple boot OS's and have them load
> quick, but you are saying the Seagate with do better! Please explain, I
> guess i'm not up to par and also have never used Seagate. Are they good
> drives with a good/great track record?
>
> Will my new board support NCQ?
>
> PS: My new system will have:
> Asus A8V Deluxe
> AMD Athlon 3500+ (venice core)
> 1 Gig of corsair TWINX1024-3200C2PT
> Geforce 6800 GT AGP 256 MB DDR
> Etc...
>
> Richard
>
> "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
> news:427da0e1$1_2@127.0.0.1...
>> Today, I bought two Seagate 300GB NCQ drives that will absolutely *SMOKE*
>> your punt 10,000 RPM Raptors, *AND* I have over a half terabyte storage
>> compared to your puny 148GB.
>>
>> Raptors are so yesterday....
>>
>> Bobby
>>
>> "Richard K Rabbat" <richardkr@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:hqOdnUozOaUdE-DfRVn-qw@comcast.com...
>> > Nah, changed my mind about the Deathstar,
>> > Today I bought 2 Western Digital Raptor 74GB 10,000 RPM Harddrives
>> > Baby...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Venom" <Viper@Mailhouse.com> wrote in message
>> > news:cYdfe.6291$31.4372@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> >> What does it matter? He is going to buy a deathstar and they don`t
>> >> last
>> > long
>> >> anyhow.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
>> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
>> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"NoNoBadDog!" <no_spam_bsledge@verizon.com> wrote in message
news:2QVle.5550$3u3.4327@trnddc07...
> NCQ enabled motherboards allow the data to be pulled from the drives in a
> non-sequential read, boosting speed *consistently*. While Raptors can be
> faster in *BURST* modes, the NCQ is a real time, all the time benefit that
> will enhance throughput *all the time*. a 7200 RPM NCQ drive will
> outperform a 10,000 RPM Raptor in sustained usage, which means that in the
> long run it will be faster...particularly for gaming, video and audio.
>
> Despite what the Raptor "fanboys" will shout, the tests verify that
> overall
> NCQ beat the Raptor.
>
> Bobby
>
Memory beats disk access all the time, and as memory gets cheaper, more
stuff is cached in memory, making synchronous disk access speed less
important. About the only time you see disk speed making a big difference is
when a program is first loaded, which doesn't take very long in most cases.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

The fault in your logic comes in assuming that what you are looking for is
going to be in memory. When accessing data that is randomly placed on the
disks in a harddrive, NCQ can access that data faster and transfer it to
memory (or the FSB). Getting the data faster from the disk is what makes
NCQ faster. Your reply talks about where the data is *AFTER* it is read
from the disc. Memory is faster, but the information has to be read from
the disc first...and NCQ is faster.

You seem to imply that as memory gets cheaper, data will just magically
appear there and not have to be read from the disc. I assure you that even
if memory were free, the data that is placed in memory must come from the
hard drive. Your logic does not hold up. Hard drives have always been
slower than memory, which is why platter speed, cache, access and seek
times, latency, spin up and spin down, areal density and other factors have
been manipulated to increase data access and throughput.

Bobby

"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news😱uidnakC9KIcsAXfRVn-tw@comcast.com...
> "NoNoBadDog!" <no_spam_bsledge@verizon.com> wrote in message
> news:2QVle.5550$3u3.4327@trnddc07...
>> NCQ enabled motherboards allow the data to be pulled from the drives in a
>> non-sequential read, boosting speed *consistently*. While Raptors can be
>> faster in *BURST* modes, the NCQ is a real time, all the time benefit
>> that
>> will enhance throughput *all the time*. a 7200 RPM NCQ drive will
>> outperform a 10,000 RPM Raptor in sustained usage, which means that in
>> the
>> long run it will be faster...particularly for gaming, video and audio.
>>
>> Despite what the Raptor "fanboys" will shout, the tests verify that
>> overall
>> NCQ beat the Raptor.
>>
>> Bobby
>>
> Memory beats disk access all the time, and as memory gets cheaper, more
> stuff is cached in memory, making synchronous disk access speed less
> important. About the only time you see disk speed making a big difference
> is when a program is first loaded, which doesn't take very long in most
> cases.
>

 

[Rob]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

NoNoBadDog! wrote:
> The fault in your logic comes in assuming that what you are looking for is
> going to be in memory. When accessing data that is randomly placed on the
> disks in a harddrive, NCQ can access that data faster and transfer it to
> memory (or the FSB). Getting the data faster from the disk is what makes
> NCQ faster. Your reply talks about where the data is *AFTER* it is read
> from the disc. Memory is faster, but the information has to be read from
> the disc first...and NCQ is faster.
>
> You seem to imply that as memory gets cheaper, data will just magically
> appear there and not have to be read from the disc. I assure you that even
> if memory were free, the data that is placed in memory must come from the
> hard drive. Your logic does not hold up. Hard drives have always been
> slower than memory, which is why platter speed, cache, access and seek
> times, latency, spin up and spin down, areal density and other factors have
> been manipulated to increase data access and throughput.
>
> Bobby
>
> "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news😱uidnakC9KIcsAXfRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>
>>"NoNoBadDog!" <no_spam_bsledge@verizon.com> wrote in message
>>news:2QVle.5550$3u3.4327@trnddc07...
>>
>>>NCQ enabled motherboards allow the data to be pulled from the drives in a
>>>non-sequential read, boosting speed *consistently*. While Raptors can be
>>>faster in *BURST* modes, the NCQ is a real time, all the time benefit
>>>that
>>>will enhance throughput *all the time*. a 7200 RPM NCQ drive will
>>>outperform a 10,000 RPM Raptor in sustained usage, which means that in
>>>the
>>>long run it will be faster...particularly for gaming, video and audio.
>>>
>>>Despite what the Raptor "fanboys" will shout, the tests verify that
>>>overall
>>>NCQ beat the Raptor.
>>>
>>>Bobby
>>>
>>
>>Memory beats disk access all the time, and as memory gets cheaper, more
>>stuff is cached in memory, making synchronous disk access speed less
>>important. About the only time you see disk speed making a big difference
>>is when a program is first loaded, which doesn't take very long in most
>>cases.
>>
>

I'd tend to agree with the RAM argument. Super-fast disks come into
their own on server apps and throwing huge video files around, but for
most other uses anything above 7200 SATAs represents a large diminishing
return. Speaking as a user of a Mac Mini (4200, 1Gb RAM) and a PC (7200
SATA, 1Gb RAM).

Rob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Rob" <removethisbitgramsci@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:d79ion$3n4$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>> The fault in your logic comes in assuming that what you are looking for
>> is going to be in memory. When accessing data that is randomly placed on
>> the disks in a harddrive, NCQ can access that data faster and transfer it
>> to memory (or the FSB). Getting the data faster from the disk is what
>> makes NCQ faster. Your reply talks about where the data is *AFTER* it is
>> read from the disc. Memory is faster, but the information has to be read
>> from the disc first...and NCQ is faster.
>>
>> You seem to imply that as memory gets cheaper, data will just magically
>> appear there and not have to be read from the disc. I assure you that
>> even if memory were free, the data that is placed in memory must come
>> from the hard drive. Your logic does not hold up. Hard drives have
>> always been slower than memory, which is why platter speed, cache, access
>> and seek times, latency, spin up and spin down, areal density and other
>> factors have been manipulated to increase data access and throughput.
>>
>> Bobby
>>
>> "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news😱uidnakC9KIcsAXfRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>>
>>>"NoNoBadDog!" <no_spam_bsledge@verizon.com> wrote in message
>>>news:2QVle.5550$3u3.4327@trnddc07...
>>>
>>>>NCQ enabled motherboards allow the data to be pulled from the drives in
>>>>a
>>>>non-sequential read, boosting speed *consistently*. While Raptors can
>>>>be
>>>>faster in *BURST* modes, the NCQ is a real time, all the time benefit
>>>>that
>>>>will enhance throughput *all the time*. a 7200 RPM NCQ drive will
>>>>outperform a 10,000 RPM Raptor in sustained usage, which means that in
>>>>the
>>>>long run it will be faster...particularly for gaming, video and audio.
>>>>
>>>>Despite what the Raptor "fanboys" will shout, the tests verify that
>>>>overall
>>>>NCQ beat the Raptor.
>>>>
>>>>Bobby
>>>>
>>>
>>>Memory beats disk access all the time, and as memory gets cheaper, more
>>>stuff is cached in memory, making synchronous disk access speed less
>>>important. About the only time you see disk speed making a big difference
>>>is when a program is first loaded, which doesn't take very long in most
>>>cases.
>>>
>>
>
> I'd tend to agree with the RAM argument. Super-fast disks come into their
> own on server apps and throwing huge video files around, but for most
> other uses anything above 7200 SATAs represents a large diminishing
> return. Speaking as a user of a Mac Mini (4200, 1Gb RAM) and a PC (7200
> SATA, 1Gb RAM).
>
> Rob

Rob;

What you fail to realize is that the data just does not magically appear
in RAM from out of the blue. The data has to be read from the drive.
Caching, prefetching, long branch predictions...but the data originally
reside *ON THE HARD DRIVE*. RAM is faster. I don't dispute that. What I
wish you and the others to understand is that NCQ allows faster *SUSTAINED*
data transfer, thus giving data to the RAM faster. If you have a file on
the HDD, your RAM cannot just "make it up". It has to access the data on
the HDD. Because NCQ allows out of order execution, it is significantly
faster than any standard IDE device (UDMA), and is also faster than the
Raptors in sustained read, which is what most reads from the HDD are.
Before data can be allocated to RAM, it has to come from *SOMEWHERE*; it
just does not magically appear from the ether. Because NCQ is
non-sequential, allows faster *SUSTAINED* access to data on the HDD, and
with today's faster data buses yielding much faster throughput, NCQ is a
clear winner.

I never disputed RAM is faster. But the data in the RAM comes from
somewhere...

Do you understand? Can you comprehend? RAM it not psychic. It is not
clairvoyant. It gets its data from elsewhere. It releases the data it has
when it is asked. Simple. Elegant. But the date comes from somewhere
*OUTSIDE* the RAM.

I cannot make it any simpler. If you cannot make the connection, I am
sorry. It is your loss, not mine.

Bobby

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"NoNoBadDog!" <no_spam_bsledge@verizon.com> wrote in message
news:yXYle.2481$vK5.1554@trnddc03...
> What you fail to realize is that the data just does not magically appear
> in RAM from out of the blue. The data has to be read from the drive.
> Caching, prefetching, long branch predictions...but the data originally
> reside *ON THE HARD DRIVE*. RAM is faster. I don't dispute that. What I
> wish you and the others to understand is that NCQ allows faster
> *SUSTAINED*
> data transfer, thus giving data to the RAM faster. If you have a file on
> the HDD, your RAM cannot just "make it up". It has to access the data on
> the HDD. Because NCQ allows out of order execution, it is significantly
> faster than any standard IDE device (UDMA), and is also faster than the
> Raptors in sustained read, which is what most reads from the HDD are.
> Before data can be allocated to RAM, it has to come from *SOMEWHERE*; it
> just does not magically appear from the ether. Because NCQ is
> non-sequential, allows faster *SUSTAINED* access to data on the HDD, and
> with today's faster data buses yielding much faster throughput, NCQ is a
> clear winner.
>
> I never disputed RAM is faster. But the data in the RAM comes from
> somewhere...
>
> Do you understand? Can you comprehend? RAM it not psychic. It is not
> clairvoyant. It gets its data from elsewhere. It releases the data it
> has
> when it is asked. Simple. Elegant. But the date comes from somewhere
> *OUTSIDE* the RAM.
>
> I cannot make it any simpler. If you cannot make the connection, I am
> sorry. It is your loss, not mine.
>
> Bobby
>
I understand. But the point is that as time goes on, there is less and less
need for "sustained" disk access, especially on desktop systems. Even on
database servers (Oracle, DB2, MS SQL Server) it is more and more common
that a large portion of the data remains in memory (except for very large
data warehouse databases). Database products, like many applications and
operating systems, are exploiting memory to a larger degree than ever
before. This is one reason that 64 bit computing is coming, because it is
needed to address more than 4GB of memory.

So big deal, the first time the data is accessed, it comes from disk, but on
subsequent accesses it is more and more likely that it will be in memory
cache.

 

[Rob]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

NoNoBadDog! wrote:
> "Rob" <removethisbitgramsci@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:d79ion$3n4$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
>>NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>>
>>>The fault in your logic comes in assuming that what you are looking for
>>>is going to be in memory. When accessing data that is randomly placed on
>>>the disks in a harddrive, NCQ can access that data faster and transfer it
>>>to memory (or the FSB). Getting the data faster from the disk is what
>>>makes NCQ faster. Your reply talks about where the data is *AFTER* it is
>>>read from the disc. Memory is faster, but the information has to be read
>>>from the disc first...and NCQ is faster.
>>>
>>>You seem to imply that as memory gets cheaper, data will just magically
>>>appear there and not have to be read from the disc. I assure you that
>>>even if memory were free, the data that is placed in memory must come
>>>from the hard drive. Your logic does not hold up. Hard drives have
>>>always been slower than memory, which is why platter speed, cache, access
>>>and seek times, latency, spin up and spin down, areal density and other
>>>factors have been manipulated to increase data access and throughput.
>>>
>>>Bobby
>>>
>>>"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>news😱uidnakC9KIcsAXfRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"NoNoBadDog!" <no_spam_bsledge@verizon.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:2QVle.5550$3u3.4327@trnddc07...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>NCQ enabled motherboards allow the data to be pulled from the drives in
>>>>>a
>>>>>non-sequential read, boosting speed *consistently*. While Raptors can
>>>>>be
>>>>>faster in *BURST* modes, the NCQ is a real time, all the time benefit
>>>>>that
>>>>>will enhance throughput *all the time*. a 7200 RPM NCQ drive will
>>>>>outperform a 10,000 RPM Raptor in sustained usage, which means that in
>>>>>the
>>>>>long run it will be faster...particularly for gaming, video and audio.
>>>>>
>>>>>Despite what the Raptor "fanboys" will shout, the tests verify that
>>>>>overall
>>>>>NCQ beat the Raptor.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bobby
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Memory beats disk access all the time, and as memory gets cheaper, more
>>>>stuff is cached in memory, making synchronous disk access speed less
>>>>important. About the only time you see disk speed making a big difference
>>>>is when a program is first loaded, which doesn't take very long in most
>>>>cases.
>>>>
>>>
>>I'd tend to agree with the RAM argument. Super-fast disks come into their
>>own on server apps and throwing huge video files around, but for most
>>other uses anything above 7200 SATAs represents a large diminishing
>>return. Speaking as a user of a Mac Mini (4200, 1Gb RAM) and a PC (7200
>>SATA, 1Gb RAM).
>>
>>Rob
>
>
> Rob;
>
> What you fail to realize is that the data just does not magically appear
> in RAM from out of the blue. The data has to be read from the drive.
> Caching, prefetching, long branch predictions...but the data originally
> reside *ON THE HARD DRIVE*. RAM is faster. I don't dispute that. What I
> wish you and the others to understand is that NCQ allows faster *SUSTAINED*
> data transfer, thus giving data to the RAM faster. If you have a file on
> the HDD, your RAM cannot just "make it up". It has to access the data on
> the HDD. Because NCQ allows out of order execution, it is significantly
> faster than any standard IDE device (UDMA), and is also faster than the
> Raptors in sustained read, which is what most reads from the HDD are.
> Before data can be allocated to RAM, it has to come from *SOMEWHERE*; it
> just does not magically appear from the ether. Because NCQ is
> non-sequential, allows faster *SUSTAINED* access to data on the HDD, and
> with today's faster data buses yielding much faster throughput, NCQ is a
> clear winner.
>
> I never disputed RAM is faster. But the data in the RAM comes from
> somewhere...
>
> Do you understand? Can you comprehend? RAM it not psychic. It is not
> clairvoyant. It gets its data from elsewhere. It releases the data it has
> when it is asked. Simple. Elegant. But the date comes from somewhere
> *OUTSIDE* the RAM.
>
> I cannot make it any simpler. If you cannot make the connection, I am
> sorry. It is your loss, not mine.
>
> Bobby
>
>

Yes, thanks Bobby, I do understand that data originates from the HD, and
that moving it to RAM is an issue if the HD is slow. My point was that,
for most users, there's little between HDs that would make RAID or NCQ
worthwhile (hence 'diminishing returns'), and a move from (say) 512 to
1Gb of RAM would be wiser.

I accept that a faster HD will result in faster opening of programmes
for example - but it's such a small amount of time difference I, for
one, wouldn't consider it a limitation.

Now, if you're talking about throwing around 1Gb video files, or access
from 300 users on a network, then yes, I'm with you. Just out of
interest - where do you notice the best improvements in use (not
benchmarks!)?

Rob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Rob" <removethisbitgramsci@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:d7avpq$kj9$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>> "Rob" <removethisbitgramsci@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:d79ion$3n4$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>
>>>NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>>>
>>>>The fault in your logic comes in assuming that what you are looking for
>>>>is going to be in memory. When accessing data that is randomly placed
>>>>on
>>>>the disks in a harddrive, NCQ can access that data faster and transfer
>>>>it
>>>>to memory (or the FSB). Getting the data faster from the disk is what
>>>>makes NCQ faster. Your reply talks about where the data is *AFTER* it
>>>>is
>>>>read from the disc. Memory is faster, but the information has to be
>>>>read
>>>>from the disc first...and NCQ is faster.
>>>>
>>>>You seem to imply that as memory gets cheaper, data will just magically
>>>>appear there and not have to be read from the disc. I assure you that
>>>>even if memory were free, the data that is placed in memory must come
>>>>from the hard drive. Your logic does not hold up. Hard drives have
>>>>always been slower than memory, which is why platter speed, cache,
>>>>access
>>>>and seek times, latency, spin up and spin down, areal density and other
>>>>factors have been manipulated to increase data access and throughput.
>>>>
>>>>Bobby
>>>>
>>>>"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>>news😱uidnakC9KIcsAXfRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"NoNoBadDog!" <no_spam_bsledge@verizon.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:2QVle.5550$3u3.4327@trnddc07...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>NCQ enabled motherboards allow the data to be pulled from the drives
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>non-sequential read, boosting speed *consistently*. While Raptors can
>>>>>>be
>>>>>>faster in *BURST* modes, the NCQ is a real time, all the time benefit
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>will enhance throughput *all the time*. a 7200 RPM NCQ drive will
>>>>>>outperform a 10,000 RPM Raptor in sustained usage, which means that in
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>long run it will be faster...particularly for gaming, video and audio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Despite what the Raptor "fanboys" will shout, the tests verify that
>>>>>>overall
>>>>>>NCQ beat the Raptor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bobby
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Memory beats disk access all the time, and as memory gets cheaper, more
>>>>>stuff is cached in memory, making synchronous disk access speed less
>>>>>important. About the only time you see disk speed making a big
>>>>>difference
>>>>>is when a program is first loaded, which doesn't take very long in most
>>>>>cases.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>I'd tend to agree with the RAM argument. Super-fast disks come into their
>>>own on server apps and throwing huge video files around, but for most
>>>other uses anything above 7200 SATAs represents a large diminishing
>>>return. Speaking as a user of a Mac Mini (4200, 1Gb RAM) and a PC (7200
>>>SATA, 1Gb RAM).
>>>
>>>Rob
>>
>>
>> Rob;
>>
>> What you fail to realize is that the data just does not magically
>> appear
>> in RAM from out of the blue. The data has to be read from the drive.
>> Caching, prefetching, long branch predictions...but the data originally
>> reside *ON THE HARD DRIVE*. RAM is faster. I don't dispute that. What
>> I
>> wish you and the others to understand is that NCQ allows faster
>> *SUSTAINED*
>> data transfer, thus giving data to the RAM faster. If you have a file on
>> the HDD, your RAM cannot just "make it up". It has to access the data on
>> the HDD. Because NCQ allows out of order execution, it is significantly
>> faster than any standard IDE device (UDMA), and is also faster than the
>> Raptors in sustained read, which is what most reads from the HDD are.
>> Before data can be allocated to RAM, it has to come from *SOMEWHERE*; it
>> just does not magically appear from the ether. Because NCQ is
>> non-sequential, allows faster *SUSTAINED* access to data on the HDD, and
>> with today's faster data buses yielding much faster throughput, NCQ is a
>> clear winner.
>>
>> I never disputed RAM is faster. But the data in the RAM comes from
>> somewhere...
>>
>> Do you understand? Can you comprehend? RAM it not psychic. It is not
>> clairvoyant. It gets its data from elsewhere. It releases the data it
>> has
>> when it is asked. Simple. Elegant. But the date comes from somewhere
>> *OUTSIDE* the RAM.
>>
>> I cannot make it any simpler. If you cannot make the connection, I am
>> sorry. It is your loss, not mine.
>>
>> Bobby
>>
>>
>
> Yes, thanks Bobby, I do understand that data originates from the HD, and
> that moving it to RAM is an issue if the HD is slow. My point was that,
> for most users, there's little between HDs that would make RAID or NCQ
> worthwhile (hence 'diminishing returns'), and a move from (say) 512 to 1Gb
> of RAM would be wiser.
>
> I accept that a faster HD will result in faster opening of programmes for
> example - but it's such a small amount of time difference I, for one,
> wouldn't consider it a limitation.
>
> Now, if you're talking about throwing around 1Gb video files, or access
> from 300 users on a network, then yes, I'm with you. Just out of
> interest - where do you notice the best improvements in use (not
> benchmarks!)?
>
> Rob

I notice it in several areas...as you mentioned, when I am working with
video files, there is a dramatic difference.
Also, when I am working with multiple files under Microsoft Office (with
nested tables, relational DB, etc), since the data is being moved and
updated in several locations simultaneously, I noticed a marked improvements
Such as when file in Excel must update a file in PowerPoint). Also, when
streaming audio, my CPU usage is lower because the NCQ controller handles
the disk reading...nice benefit.
My whole intention in this thread was to impress upon readers that in
everyday use, NCQ was better than Raptors...it gives an increase across the
board in routine usage. I do not dispute that in certain scenarios that
Raptors might be a better choice, but since NCQ drives are cheaper, more
reliable, and in most real world applications faster, then they are clearly
the better choice. Why spend the money on Raptors when most of us would not
really place enough demand on them to warrant the cost. NCQ gives its
benefits all the time (sort of like Hypertransport, if you can understand
the analogy).

Bobby

 

[Rob]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

NoNoBadDog! wrote:
> "Rob" <removethisbitgramsci@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:d7avpq$kj9$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
>>NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>>
>>>"Rob" <removethisbitgramsci@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>news:d79ion$3n4$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The fault in your logic comes in assuming that what you are looking for
>>>>>is going to be in memory. When accessing data that is randomly placed
>>>>>on
>>>>>the disks in a harddrive, NCQ can access that data faster and transfer
>>>>>it
>>>>>to memory (or the FSB). Getting the data faster from the disk is what
>>>>>makes NCQ faster. Your reply talks about where the data is *AFTER* it
>>>>>is
>>>>>read from the disc. Memory is faster, but the information has to be
>>>>>read
>>>>
>>>>>from the disc first...and NCQ is faster.
>>>>
>>>>>You seem to imply that as memory gets cheaper, data will just magically
>>>>>appear there and not have to be read from the disc. I assure you that
>>>>>even if memory were free, the data that is placed in memory must come
>>>>
>>>>>from the hard drive. Your logic does not hold up. Hard drives have
>>>>
>>>>>always been slower than memory, which is why platter speed, cache,
>>>>>access
>>>>>and seek times, latency, spin up and spin down, areal density and other
>>>>>factors have been manipulated to increase data access and throughput.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bobby
>>>>>
>>>>>"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news😱uidnakC9KIcsAXfRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"NoNoBadDog!" <no_spam_bsledge@verizon.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:2QVle.5550$3u3.4327@trnddc07...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>NCQ enabled motherboards allow the data to be pulled from the drives
>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>non-sequential read, boosting speed *consistently*. While Raptors can
>>>>>>>be
>>>>>>>faster in *BURST* modes, the NCQ is a real time, all the time benefit
>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>will enhance throughput *all the time*. a 7200 RPM NCQ drive will
>>>>>>>outperform a 10,000 RPM Raptor in sustained usage, which means that in
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>long run it will be faster...particularly for gaming, video and audio.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Despite what the Raptor "fanboys" will shout, the tests verify that
>>>>>>>overall
>>>>>>>NCQ beat the Raptor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bobby
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Memory beats disk access all the time, and as memory gets cheaper, more
>>>>>>stuff is cached in memory, making synchronous disk access speed less
>>>>>>important. About the only time you see disk speed making a big
>>>>>>difference
>>>>>>is when a program is first loaded, which doesn't take very long in most
>>>>>>cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I'd tend to agree with the RAM argument. Super-fast disks come into their
>>>>own on server apps and throwing huge video files around, but for most
>>>>other uses anything above 7200 SATAs represents a large diminishing
>>>>return. Speaking as a user of a Mac Mini (4200, 1Gb RAM) and a PC (7200
>>>>SATA, 1Gb RAM).
>>>>
>>>>Rob
>>>
>>>
>>>Rob;
>>>
>>> What you fail to realize is that the data just does not magically
>>>appear
>>>in RAM from out of the blue. The data has to be read from the drive.
>>>Caching, prefetching, long branch predictions...but the data originally
>>>reside *ON THE HARD DRIVE*. RAM is faster. I don't dispute that. What
>>>I
>>>wish you and the others to understand is that NCQ allows faster
>>>*SUSTAINED*
>>>data transfer, thus giving data to the RAM faster. If you have a file on
>>>the HDD, your RAM cannot just "make it up". It has to access the data on
>>>the HDD. Because NCQ allows out of order execution, it is significantly
>>>faster than any standard IDE device (UDMA), and is also faster than the
>>>Raptors in sustained read, which is what most reads from the HDD are.
>>>Before data can be allocated to RAM, it has to come from *SOMEWHERE*; it
>>>just does not magically appear from the ether. Because NCQ is
>>>non-sequential, allows faster *SUSTAINED* access to data on the HDD, and
>>>with today's faster data buses yielding much faster throughput, NCQ is a
>>>clear winner.
>>>
>>>I never disputed RAM is faster. But the data in the RAM comes from
>>>somewhere...
>>>
>>>Do you understand? Can you comprehend? RAM it not psychic. It is not
>>>clairvoyant. It gets its data from elsewhere. It releases the data it
>>>has
>>>when it is asked. Simple. Elegant. But the date comes from somewhere
>>>*OUTSIDE* the RAM.
>>>
>>>I cannot make it any simpler. If you cannot make the connection, I am
>>>sorry. It is your loss, not mine.
>>>
>>>Bobby
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yes, thanks Bobby, I do understand that data originates from the HD, and
>>that moving it to RAM is an issue if the HD is slow. My point was that,
>>for most users, there's little between HDs that would make RAID or NCQ
>>worthwhile (hence 'diminishing returns'), and a move from (say) 512 to 1Gb
>>of RAM would be wiser.
>>
>>I accept that a faster HD will result in faster opening of programmes for
>>example - but it's such a small amount of time difference I, for one,
>>wouldn't consider it a limitation.
>>
>>Now, if you're talking about throwing around 1Gb video files, or access
>>from 300 users on a network, then yes, I'm with you. Just out of
>>interest - where do you notice the best improvements in use (not
>>benchmarks!)?
>>
>>Rob
>
>
> I notice it in several areas...as you mentioned, when I am working with
> video files, there is a dramatic difference.
> Also, when I am working with multiple files under Microsoft Office (with
> nested tables, relational DB, etc), since the data is being moved and
> updated in several locations simultaneously, I noticed a marked improvements
> Such as when file in Excel must update a file in PowerPoint). Also, when
> streaming audio, my CPU usage is lower because the NCQ controller handles
> the disk reading...nice benefit.
> My whole intention in this thread was to impress upon readers that in
> everyday use, NCQ was better than Raptors...it gives an increase across the
> board in routine usage. I do not dispute that in certain scenarios that
> Raptors might be a better choice, but since NCQ drives are cheaper, more
> reliable, and in most real world applications faster, then they are clearly
> the better choice. Why spend the money on Raptors when most of us would not
> really place enough demand on them to warrant the cost. NCQ gives its
> benefits all the time (sort of like Hypertransport, if you can understand
> the analogy).
>
> Bobby
>
>

Fair enough - I'll certainly look into NCQ on the back of what you say
come next upgrade.

Rob