jcapcjcapc Member Posts: 6 ■□□□□□□□□□
ATA --> 100/133 MBs
USB 2.0 --> 480 Mbs
SATA (Now) --> 150 MBs

That numbers are OK?

So ATA is faster than USB 2.0


  • RussSRussS Member Posts: 2,068 ■■■□□□□□□□
    Numbers like that don't tell the full story.
    For instance, who has a USB 2.0 hard drive available? All of the USB hard drives I have seen are just that interface between the enclosure and the computer, but the drive itself is usually ATA133.
    You didn't mention firewire800? How about SCSI? ...
    As incredible as this may sound, SATA has performance advantages over Ultra320 - provided it's used correctly and in conjunction with a sufficiently fast interface with the system. That is because each SATA hard drive communicates with the controller via its own fast (150 MB/s) point-to-point connection while the SCSI bus is used jointly by all devices. In certain circumstances this constellation can lead to bottlenecks in peak data traffic: A fact which is sufficiently well known for manufacturers to waste no time in fine-tuning Serial Attached SCSI (SAS). Until they're done, SATA will have its day.
    (from tomshardware)

    The thing about data transfer is not just about pure speed, but bandwidth too. Use the old highway scenario .... 20 cars doing 100mph on a one lane highway or 40 cars doing 60mph on a 10 lane route .... which is going to be the fastest way of getting 400 people from point A to point B?
    FIM website of the year 2007
  • duct boyduct boy Member Posts: 34 ■■□□□□□□□□
    one thing you have to remember is the bits and bytes
    100/133ATA is 100MB or 133MB so its bytes
    the same as SATA which is bytes, but USB is bits so it might seem fast
    at 480Mb is only 60MB
    I know its all very basic but alot of people forget

    best of luck in the future
Sign In or Register to comment.