Before I go ahead and buy my hard drive , I have one quick question. Will there be a performance increase if I went with SATA once I have actually opened an application? (Faster rendering times, or a higher frame rate in games) Thanks, and sorry for the silly question

You will only experience a performance increase in circumstances where you are accessing data on the drive. Games will not benefit other than with quicker load times. Applications such as rendering will only benefit if the data files being worked on (and the resultant calculations) are too large to be held in system memory.

Thanks, I was just making sure. I see so many people going for more expensive SATA hard drives with about 10 thousand RPM. My question is, why spend so much money if all it does is allow you to interact with your hard drive a few miliseconds faster? (Servers are a different matter, I am talking about SATA for a pc.)

was my post deleted?

There are no deleted posts in this topic. Posts which get deleted are still viewable to me

For some tasks, the faster drive operation can make a lot of difference. Video editing is perhaps the most commonly used such task.

Ok thanks, I don't think I'll be doing any video editing with this computer.

Cat...
How do the SATA compare to EIDE on a Raid Controller
Raid striped 133's get you 266 +\- which I use for my video work...
I have not had any experience with the SATA's yet...

SATA's are alot faster overall but unless your motherboard has SATA capability and move alot of massive files you will not see any huge increase in preformance.

SATA (150Mb/s max theoretical transfer) is not much faster than ATA133. However, the standard does offer smaller cables, easier physical installation (no jumpers), and some degree of future proofing (should IDE ever be phased out - which won't be happening any time soon).

Throwing two drives into a RAID 0 configuration does not net you twice the speed, as numerous benchmarks can attest. A combination of overheads, access times, the fact that most RAID controllers in consumer boards are software based and lack of data redundancy in RAID 0 means that RAID 0 isn't really worth it for general usage and gaming (unless you really like gaining several precious seconds in loading screens). RAID 1 can be handy if you're paranoid about data loss, but you are sacrificing an entire drive for mirroring.

Those benchmarks were interesting...

However I would rather have a benchmarking program to compare what a drive does on my own systems.

In real life, I see a huge difference in a system setup using the Raid configuration over a single drive, much more than the 10% - 15% that test shows.

Even at that modest 10% figure a 133 drive gets (146) close to the SATA (150)