>Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 02:20:29 -0600 >From: Jeff Walther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [G] Acard 6880M [SNIP] >A few years ago, a fast drive delivered 20 - 30 MB/s of data if you were >lucky. A few years before than it was 12 - 14 MB/s. If you buy older models of >drives which are still on the market, that's the kind of performance you can >expect, regardless of the electronic interface that is attached to the drive. >The speed the platters spin, the speed the heads can move, and the density of >the data on the platters limits the speed at which a drive can, in reality, >deliver data. No drive is pushing the limits of today's 133 MB/S interface >(unless I became suddenly out of date).
That's true, presumably, of the sustained transfer rate. But, with the 8 GB and larger buffers on most recent drives, the burst rate should be whatever the ATA interface can handle. If the OS and drive controller allow the computer to do something else while the on-drive buffer is filling, a multi-processing system (like OS X, UNIX, or Windows XP) should be speeded up by the faster bus. I wonder, OTOH, if the possible benefits mentioned above are also achieved by the use of DMA without the faster bus. Once upon a time, I used to know more about such things, but my knowledge is mostly either forgotten or out of date. (:<) I'm hoping somebody else can fill in the gaps! >From: Andrea Salvarani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [G] Acard 6880M >Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:11:34 +0930 [SNIP] >As I have a digital SLR and do a lot a photo processing (I shoot RAW), I think >the 150MB/s of data transfer provided by the SATA interface should be of great >advantage. > >Anyone with experience? > >Cheers >Andrea No experience, really, but it seems to me that there would be no noticeable difference between a 150MB/s data transfer rate and even a 66MB/sec rate when working with files of under, say, 50 MB, which I would guess even large, uncompressed photo files are. If you were transferring a whole lot of such files at one time, the difference might be noticeable, but I'd venture to guess that the amount of time saved with the faster drive setup over the life of your system would be less time than it would take to obtain and install the SATA interface and drive. Of course, someone working with video files or even large audio files might well find the faster setup worth the effort, subject to the considerations discussed in the first part of this post. - Aaron -- G-List is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | -- We have Apple Refurbished Monitors in stock! | & CDRWs on Sale! | Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> G-List list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/g-list%40mail.maclaunch.com/> iPod Accessories for Less at 1-800-iPOD.COM Fast Delivery, Low Price, Good Deal www.1800ipod.com
