Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Consumer Hardware & Components > better for Mac Pro: SATA 32MB or SATA2 16MB?

better for Mac Pro: SATA 32MB or SATA2 16MB?
Thread Tools
canadave
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2009, 10:20 AM
 
Hi all,

I'm looking to buy a third hard drive for my Mac Pro, which will become my primary OS drive (the other two drives will become "data" and "Boot Camp Windows" drives, respectively).

I'm down to two drives: both are Western Digital Caviars, but one is SATA 32MB cache (WD5001AALS) and the other is SATA2 16MB cache (WD6400AAKS). Yes, the sizes are different, but that's not really a big concern for me. I'm more concerned with performance.

Is there a way to tell which will give me better performance on my Mac Pro, the SATA 32MB cache drive or the SATA2 16MB cache drive? Or will it pretty much be a tossup?
     
canadave  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2009, 11:44 AM
 
OK, now I'm even more confused. On NCIX.com, the drive is listed in the "SATA" category, not "SATA2". On Western Digital's website, too, the WD5001AALS is labelled as being a "SATA" (not "SATA2") drive. However, the WD website lists the drive speed as "3.0 Gbps" (which I was under the impression meant it was "SATA2")!

In fact, the WD website only lists SATA drives, not SATA2 drives. Which makes me wonder if they're just using "SATA" to generically mean "SATA2"? Or am I completely confused about what exactly differentiates "SATA" from "SATA2"?

Help! I'm talking myself in circles
     
EmmEff
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2009, 01:10 PM
 
You're making this more of an issue than it should be... they're all SATA 2 drives. The drive with the 32MB cache should be faster theoretically, assuming the rotational speed, head density, etc. are all equal.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2009, 02:15 PM
 
Hard drive cache size generally doesn't matter; it could be noticeable if you're doing a lot of small writes but even then it's pretty marginal. If you really want performance, buy a 300GB Raptor. If you just want a lot of space with good performance buy a 1TB Hitachi, they're not much more expensive (<$20) than the two drives you mentioned.

"SATA2" (or "SATA II") is not a had drive standard. SATA II was a group of people. Anyone who refers to a drive as SATA2 is wrong.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2009, 12:28 PM
 
If you want speed, you could buy a 15,000 RPM SAS drive and ignore SATA all together. Many serial cards can do both SATA & SAS, but double check.

SCSI has faster interface, much higher sustained transfer rate, and faster seek time than ATA. It is also more expensive. Because of the rotational speed, SCSI also generally has a smaller capacity.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2009, 12:40 PM
 
Also, if you wait a month or two, you could just jump onto a 6 Gbps SAS drive. Yeah, it'll be expensive, but it'll theoretically be twice as fast as any SATA drive on the market.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2009, 02:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
If you want speed, you could buy a 15,000 RPM SAS drive and ignore SATA all together. Many serial cards can do both SATA & SAS, but double check.
The Mac Pro requires the RAID card to support SAS drives; I think it's a bit of a stretch for a guy who was looking at a $90 drive to buy a $700 RAID card and $500+ drive.

Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Also, if you wait a month or two, you could just jump onto a 6 Gbps SAS drive. Yeah, it'll be expensive, but it'll theoretically be twice as fast as any SATA drive on the market.
6Gbps drives (SAS or SATA) aren't going to be any faster (beyond a 5ms write) because the drives can't sustain >3Gbps.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2009, 03:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
The Mac Pro requires the RAID card to support SAS drives; I think it's a bit of a stretch for a guy who was looking at a $90 drive to buy a $700 RAID card and $500+ drive.
Really? That's pretty lame.

Originally Posted by mduell View Post
6Gbps drives (SAS or SATA) aren't going to be any faster (beyond a 5ms write) because the drives can't sustain >3Gbps.
That's what RAIDs are for.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2009, 08:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Really? That's pretty lame.
The 2009 model may include the SAS chipset without the RAID card, but the 06 and 08 models only supported SATA.

Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
That's what RAIDs are for.
Even with RAID you're not moving more than 3Gbps per drive (which are all on separate channels).
     
yoketee
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2009, 09:03 AM
 
Hitachi is a better choice. But that doesnt mean the rest are not good. it's depends on how extensive you are using the HDD. if you and into video, 3D,... alot of rendering, I would suggest you go for enterprise HDD. because consumer drives are meant for industrial used.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2009, 03:02 AM
 
SATA2 vs. SATA is nonsense.

In the real world there are no performance differences between 32/16 MB cache drives.

Buy according to capacity, actual performance (not specs sheet numbers), and price. In that order. WD are usually a good choice. Black for performance, green for low noise/heat. I also like Seagate, but after the whole Barracuda 7200/11 snafu I'd go for the WD for a while. At least until I'm certain Seagate has got its act together again (for 3.5" disks that is, their 2.5" disks are awesome).
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:39 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,