ATA 100 or 133 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

The_Dude · 04-22-2003, 06:42 PM

Which one is faster?

and is the difference noticable?

BigJonnyJ · 04-22-2003, 06:47 PM

ATA/133 is supposidly faster, but in day to day use I doubt that you would be able to tell the difference.

However, at this time there isn't a good reason not to get ATA/133 as most, if not all motherboards support it.

Johnny Rotten · 04-22-2003, 06:47 PM

It's not noticable unless you're running a server. In which case you'd be using SCSI instead of IDE anyway. Cache size is more important, because 100 and 133 are just peak rates, not average speed ratings. I'd recommend an 8MB 100 over a 2MB 133. More responsive.

rubicon · 04-22-2003, 06:47 PM

On paper, 133 is faster. In reality I'm not sure you'd notice much of a difference. You'll see more performance out of a 8 MB cache.

Tom's Hardware Guide did a great review on ATA133. www.tomshardware.com.

Johnny Rotten · 04-22-2003, 06:48 PM

Woah, I'm dizzy

.

Motry Latchman · 04-22-2003, 06:50 PM

There are a few reviews out there such as this one: http://www.amdmb.com/article-display...D=151&PageID=1

Quick answer - little difference - probably best to decide between drives based on other factors (price, capacity, noise, buffer size).

merkerguitars · 04-22-2003, 11:45 PM

It's such a close gap it doesn't matter...The replacement hard drive that maxtor sent me was a 133 and my old one was a 100...not a lick of noticeable difference

04-22-2003, 06:42 PM	#1 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	ATA 100 or 133 Which one is faster? and is the difference noticable? __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

04-22-2003, 06:47 PM	#3 (permalink)
Johnny Rotten lost and found Location: Berkeley	It's not noticable unless you're running a server. In which case you'd be using SCSI instead of IDE anyway. Cache size is more important, because 100 and 133 are just peak rates, not average speed ratings. I'd recommend an 8MB 100 over a 2MB 133. More responsive. __________________ "The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

04-22-2003, 06:47 PM	#4 (permalink)
rubicon Stop. Think. Question. Location: Redondo Beach, CA	On paper, 133 is faster. In reality I'm not sure you'd notice much of a difference. You'll see more performance out of a 8 MB cache. Tom's Hardware Guide did a great review on ATA133. www.tomshardware.com. __________________ How you do anything is how you do everything.

04-22-2003, 06:48 PM	#5 (permalink)
Johnny Rotten lost and found Location: Berkeley	Woah, I'm dizzy . __________________ "The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

04-22-2003, 06:50 PM	#6 (permalink)
Motry Latchman Crazy Location: to the right of the Coral Sea	There are a few reviews out there such as this one: http://www.amdmb.com/article-display...D=151&PageID=1 Quick answer - little difference - probably best to decide between drives based on other factors (price, capacity, noise, buffer size). __________________ I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it. Groucho Marx

04-22-2003, 06:47 PM	#2 (permalink)
BigJonnyJ Upright Location: Washington State	ATA/133 is supposidly faster, but in day to day use I doubt that you would be able to tell the difference. However, at this time there isn't a good reason not to get ATA/133 as most, if not all motherboards support it.

04-22-2003, 11:45 PM	#7 (permalink)
merkerguitars Buffering......... Location: Wisconsin...	It's such a close gap it doesn't matter...The replacement hard drive that maxtor sent me was a 133 and my old one was a 100...not a lick of noticeable difference __________________ Donate now! Ask me How! Please use the search function it is your friend. Look at my mustang please feel free to comment! http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=26985