Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

macgyvr64 · Sep 7, 2006, 12:14 AM

Is there any difference (other than speed) between "SATA 3.0 Gb/sec" and "SATA 150"? I'm browsing on NewEgg for some new SATA hard drives, and it seems that most are 3.0 Gb/sec. I'm curious if there's anything stopping me from using one of these apparently faster drives on a "150" system.

mduell · Sep 9, 2006, 10:41 AM

Yes, the only difference is speed. Most SATA150 controllers can work with SATA300 drives, and for the few that can't, most 3Gb/s drives have a 1.5Gb/s jumper setting.
The higher speed does not imply any other features, like NCQ.

gradient · Jun 2, 2007, 10:03 PM

This is a bump for a very old thread, I know, but can anyone tell me how I can know if a particular SATA drive that specifies the 3.0 GB/sec interface will be compatible with my Dual 2 Ghz G5?

macgyvr64 · Jun 2, 2007, 10:52 PM

I can't remember if that G5 has a 3.0 or 1.5 interface (betting on 3.0), but what I've learned since my post above is that most SATA hard drives have a small jumper that limits speed to 150 if you have hardware which enforces that maximum. What make/model drive is it you're thinking about getting?

Big Mac · Jun 2, 2007, 11:09 PM

FWIW, I just put a WD 500GB Caviar drive in my DP 2.0, and it specifies 3.0GB transfer. It's a terrific, speedy drive.

OreoCookie · Jun 2, 2007, 11:13 PM

SATA is fully backwards compatible, in the worst case you have to set a jumper at the harddrive. However, 3 GBit/s drives are not any faster as 1.5 GBit/s drives. I think the Raptors (which are among the fastest SATA drives out there) still use the `slower' 1.5 GBit/s.

gradient · Jun 3, 2007, 01:09 AM

Thanks for the responses, guys. I had been a little worried after reading a few comments online that SATA 3.0 drives may not necessarily be backwards compatible. Anybody have a favourite HDD right now? I was thinking of picking up a pair of Maxline III's, or maybe Seagate 7200.10's ..... not sure yet.

cgc · Jun 3, 2007, 12:09 PM

In real world use, we won't see a difference in speed between SATA 1 and SATA 2. Isn't the benefit the bus, and the real benefit would be in a RAID? I'm asking cuz I don't know...

mduell · Jun 3, 2007, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by cgc

In real world use, we won't see a difference in speed between SATA 1 and SATA 2. Isn't the benefit the bus, and the real benefit would be in a RAID? I'm asking cuz I don't know...

No, because even in a RAID you typically only have one disk per SATA cable/channel. 3Gbps SATA is really just future-proofing at this point in time.

Also, "SATA 1" and "SATA 2" are meaningless phrases/distinctions. See the SATA-IO website for the proper naming/distinctions.

Big Mac · Jun 3, 2007, 02:01 PM

I chose to stay away from the 7200.10 just because early versions of that drive DID have compatibility issues with G5s. I don't think it's a problem anymore, but I didn't want to be disappointed in case it was.

mduell · Jun 3, 2007, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I chose to stay away from the 7200.10 just because early versions of that drive DID have compatibility issues with G5s. I don't think it's a problem anymore, but I didn't want to be disappointed in case it was.

Yea, the PowerMacs didn't like drive firmware 3.AED and earlier.

gradient · Jun 3, 2007, 11:18 PM

So the newer ones (3.AAE, I think?) should be fine?