Seeking a cord adaptor for IDE to SATA

[flywelder]

I am seeking to find a data cord not a power cord that I can plug up to a IDE hard drive and then attach the other end of the cord to the SATA connection on my MB.

I read some place on this forum of some one who had done this, and I would like to ask them where they purchased this cord....but I cannot find that posting...rats! So perhaps some one knows and would share with me where I can find these cords and perhaps share an item number, that would help.

Thanks all!

I await your replies.

10-27-08

[Zxian]

Take your pick.

This one should do the trick. Vantec is a trusted brand when it comes to simple storage solutions.

[James_A]

I can't seem to find the Vantec listed in any UK supplier I deal with. Any other recommended brands?

.

[jaclaz]

ANY brand will do.

Just get the cheaper you can find, there is so much difference in speed between a IDE device and the SATA that even a slowish (read worst) adapter won't be noticed, IDE tops at 133, SATA starts at 150.

Here are a few on a UK based resource:

http://www.span.com/catalog/index.php?cPat...016fdce8dcc9dcf

If you are going "cheapo" this should be perfect:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/IDE-to-SATA-Converte...1713.m153.l1262

jaclaz

[Andromeda43]

Jaclaz,

"SATA starts at 150." ???

Did you drop a zero? There are two SATA speeds....

SATA1 at 1500 and SATA2 at 3000. Both are worlds ahead of IDE.

Anyway, I have several IDE to SATA adapters. They all work the same,

no matter what the brand name.

In my own experience, the IDE drive running on the IDE to SATA adapter

will transfer data at close to SATA speeds. It blew me away the first time

I saw it. I was running Ghost 2003 at the time and it shows the data transfer

rate while it runs. (one of the few programs that actually do that)

Apparently the IDE controller on the motherboard is the biggest bottleneck to IDE

data transfer, not the drive itself. (Apparently)

This is one of my own IDE drives, fitted with the IDE to SATA adapter.

Just Google "IDE to SATA Adapter" and you'll get more info than you want or need.

Happy Computing!

Andromeda43 B)

NOTE: In the picture, if you look closely, you'll see that the SATA data cable is pulling loose

from the connector on the adapter. That's typical of SATA cables in general.

I overcome that on my own drives by securing the cable to the drive or adapter with

HOT GLUE. A bead of Silicone rubber would probably do as well.

Edited November 9, 2008 by Andromeda43

[eyeball]

Sata does start at 150. There is Sata 150 and Sata 300 as far as i know. Dont tell me iv have it wrong all these years

[Andromeda43]

Sata does start at 150. There is Sata 150 and Sata 300 as far as i know. Dont tell me iv have it wrong all these years

That's actually a "Name" not a speed!

150 is actually 1500mbps and 300 actually means 3000mbps. OK?

With all the mumbo jumbo and gobbledegook on the internet, it's hard to just get a straight answer.

I did find this on one site talking about the Maxtor DiamondMax 10 series of drives,,,, one of which I have sitting right here beside me as I type this.

On the top of the drive it says:

DiamondMax 10

Model: 6V160VO

160GB SATA 3.0Gb HDD

And in one internet article about the Maxtor drive it says this:

Interface choices

Offers the choice of parallel or serial

interface including the latest 3.0Gb/s

SATA II features and performance.

When I do a Ghost 2003 backup of my system, I can watch the

actual data transfer rate. I do see rates in the 3000 MB/sec range

when I'm using my SATAII drive.

I was very confused myself, with all the conflicting posts on the internet,

till I did my own tests.

The labeling from some drive makers doesn't help, when they call a 1500MB/sec

drive a 150 and a 3000MB/sec drive a 300.

Would it really hurt them to just add the extra zero?

Or they could just put the actual speed on the drive like Maxtor does.

Thus the 3.0Gb/s like in the above example.

It sure would be a lot less confusing.

Just my opinion, of course.

Cheers Mates!

Andromeda43 B)

[jaclaz]

@Andromeda43

You should get your figures straight before accusing someone else of dropping zeroes.

Read this:

http://www.harddrivereport.com/pata_vs_ata...ata_vs_ide.html

then read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA

SATA 1.5Gb/s

First-generation SATA interfaces, also known as SATA/150 or unofficially as SATA 1, communicate at a rate of 1.5 gigabits per second (Gbit/s). Taking into account 8b10b coding overhead, they have an actual uncoded transfer-rate of 1.2 Gbit/s, or 1,200 megabits per second (Mbit/s). The theoretical burst throughput of SATA/150 is similar to that of PATA/133, but newer SATA devices offer enhancements such as NCQ which improve performance in a multitasking environment. Sustained data transfer rates are limited by mechanical hard drives themselves, not the interfaces: the fastest modern desktop hard drives transfer data at a maximum of about 118 MB/s,[4] which is well within the capabilities of even the older PATA/133 specification.

Then, disregard all the above and do your own tests.

Get a 133 IDE (actually ATA) drive and test it.

Get a 150 SATA drive (SATA I) and test it.

Is the second over 10 times faster or a mere 13% faster?

Now try a 300 SATA drive (SATA II) and test it, does it result in roughly doubling the speed or is it over 22 times faster?

Ideally you should actually also take into account the other added features that newer SATA drives have, that can speed noticeably the actual throughpout.

Now, read this:

http://bluecouch.com.au/?p=49

where a comparison between similar drives (PATA, SATA and PATA through adapters) has been made.

jaclaz

P.S.:

It's all right if you say that fastest ATA tops at 1330 mb

Edited November 9, 2008 by jaclaz

[James_A]

Whoah! All I asked about was an adapter!

jaclaz, thanks for the pointer to eBay.co.uk. My regular suppliers want about 3 to 5 times the price. Cheapo is the way to go for the drives/motherboards I have lined up for this. Plus, I might actually be able to buy something in the UK that's half the price quoted by newegg in the USA (instead of twice the price which is more "normal")

Andromeda43, thanks for the photo of one of these actually in use and the tip about fixing the data cable. Seeing one actually installed is much more informative than the marketing photos I have seen so far. We used to fix AGP cards with the same glue technique about 8 years ago, before the later generation AGP sockets (with catches) came out.

As for the side-issue debate that's now started, first Generation SATA is both 150 AND 1500, once you put the right units in, because the one thing missing is the units. Since 1B=10b (1 Byte = 10 bits, with 8b10b encoding) SATA first Generation is both 150MB/sec and 1500Mb/sec. It's also 1200Mb/sec if you prefer to use the 8-bit byte pure data as your measurement unit!

Last, thanks to you both for the info about real-world experience and the bluecouch tests. I was not sure whether it was worth throwing money at these IDE drives, to connect them to a mobo with SATA ports, but it definitely looks worthwhile now.

.

[weEvil]

Most motherboards, even Nehalem ones, still have IDE ports. Check the manual.

[GrofLuigi]

Since SATA appeared, I wondered if an IDE device connected through such an adapter to a SATA USB HDD box would show any difference in performance.

I know it shouldn't in theory, but was someone crazy enough to try it? I don't have all the necessary hardware.

GL

Edit: to clarify, two identical USB HDD boxes - one SATA, one IDE (or one box with the two interfaces, if such a box exists), one IDE HDD.

Edited November 10, 2008 by GrofLuigi

[jaclaz]

Since SATA appeared, I wondered if an IDE device connected through such an adapter to a SATA USB HDD box would show any difference in performance.

I know it shouldn't in theory, but was someone crazy enough to try it? I don't have all the necessary hardware.

GL

Edit: to clarify, two identical USB HDD boxes - one SATA, one IDE (or one box with the two interfaces, if such a box exists), one IDE HDD.

Well, sorry to say so, but it makes NO sense, the bottleneck will be anyway the USB bus, that tops at 480 mb/s (as opposed to 1330 or 1500/3000, to keep the "high" numbers ) or if you prefer at roughly 60 MB/s .

Maybe a recent firewire (read ieee1394):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FireWire

Would be not affected, or we'll have to wait for USB 3.0:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#USB_3.0

jaclaz

[GrofLuigi]

Well, sorry to say so, but it makes NO sense, the bottleneck will be anyway the USB bus, that tops at 480 mb/s (as opposed to 1330 or 1500/3000, to keep the "high" numbers ) or if you prefer at roughly 60 MB/s .

I thought so before, but recently I switched a 4500 RPM drive with a 5400 one in a 2,5 inch USB enclosure and witnessed a speed increase. Shouldn't the USB bus have been the bottleneck there too?

I know it isn't the same, but... Recently I always check before I believe in theory.

Anyway, my question above was purely theoretical. It would be inpractical to realise it physically.

GL

[James_A]

... but recently I switched a 4500 RPM drive with a 5400 one in a 2,5 inch USB enclosure and witnessed a speed increase. Shouldn't the USB bus have been the bottleneck there too? ...

Not with those drives, the areal density on the drive platters is the limiting factor.

.

[jaclaz]

I thought so before, but recently I switched a 4500 RPM drive with a 5400 one in a 2,5 inch USB enclosure and witnessed a speed increase. Shouldn't the USB bus have been the bottleneck there too?

Well the "speed increase" may not be due to faster data transmission through the bottleneck but to several other factors, due to the 5400 drive being faster than the 4500 (not just because it spins faster ) like bigger cache, faster seek time, and a number of other factors.

A 4500 RPM drive had typically 12 ms access, whilst most 5400 went for 9 ms.

As an example it appears that NCQ (Native Command Queing) that was implemented in SATA drives is the factor that make them compete on an almost even level with SCSI ULTRA 320 faster spinning drives:

http://www.pugetsystems.com/articles.php?id=19

This:

http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/index.html

http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref...perf/index.html

is a very interesting thing to read.

...but it also depends on the actual data you are reading/writing, 0's are better than 1's :

http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?sho...21827&st=23

jaclaz