"Noozer" <dont.spam@me.here> wrote in message
news:txnGh.1211236$5R2.1082082@pd7urf3no...
> I've got a failing 40gig drive so I'm looking to purchase a new drive and
> shuffle my collection of drives around.
>
> I'd just pick up a reasonable sized SATA drive, except that the new drive
> may just end up in a USB enclosure. This means that I'd need a PATA drive.
>
> When considering the same drive in PATA vs SATA, is there a performance
> difference?
>
> Seagate 320GB Barracuda 7200.10 ATA w/ 16MB Cache vs. Seagate 320GB
> Barracuda 7200.10 SATA II w/ NCQ, 16MB Cache ...same price on each - $110
> (Cdn)
>
> I don't see any PATA drives in the drive reference, so I can't tell if
> there really is a benefit from SATA.
>
> What do y'all think?
>
>
> P.s. I can get a 500g Maxtor Maxline Pro for $160 (Cdn)... REALLY nice
> price, but it's SATA only.
>
>

Ive got 2 WD HDDS - same rpm and cache but ones ATA100 and the other is SATA
150 - I benched them and the SATA was 5% faster. Motherboard designs and
HDDs may vary but its logical that SATA is faster than PATA but not much as
my test showed.