• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

PCI IDE controller card vs. ISA

T

TrIpWiRe31337

Guest
#1
I was wondering if which controller card has the fastest transfer rate. I though ISA's were a bit older and less transfer rates than PCI, but I am not sure. Also, if I go with a PCI controller card for HDD's, would the slot be able to transfer as fast as an integrated IDE port? I was hoping to buy a raid controller card, and raid up two ATA100 hdd's, is this a good way to do it?
 
G

GOTO10

Guest
#3
Originally posted by catch23
I would buy a ATA133 controller...not RAID...

I personally believe that RAID is useless to home PC users...How many people need instant backups of everything they do?...even if you do want RAID, it does slow you down.
Can I have some of what you're smoking?

You need to do some research before posting.

RAID 0 ownz j00. :p
 
L

Law_Enforcer

Guest
#4
Originally posted by catch23
You need to read...benchmarks have shown that RAID SLOWS performance because it has to make instant backups constantly...it's useless to a home PC user. Quit trying to talk like you're 1337.
I believe that's RAID 1, while RAID 0 speeds things up, since data is read from 2 drives at the same time...
 
G

GOTO10

Guest
#5
Originally posted by catch23
You need to read...benchmarks have shown that RAID SLOWS performance because it has to make instant backups constantly...it's useless to a home PC user. Quit trying to talk like you're 1337.
Ummm yeah....

RAID level 0 (striping) offers nearly twice the read performance as a single drive.

And there is no redundancy. 'instant backups constantly'???? ummm no.

Try reading a bit....

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.html?i=1491&p=2

http://www4.tomshardware.com/storage/00q1/000329/fastrak66-15.html

Quit trying to talk like you know something.
 
S

stuy_b

Guest
#6
Originally posted by catch23
You need to read...benchmarks have shown that RAID SLOWS performance because it has to make instant backups constantly...it's useless to a home PC user. Quit trying to talk like you're 1337.

I agree totally with Catch23 on all points here, RAID is pointless for the average homeuser, you certainly wont see any benefit playing a round of Quake or whatever with a RAID setup.

RAID is suited to corporate/business use, where you want fast reliable backup and access, network servers and the like.
 
T

TomServo

Guest
#8
Got to agree with the "RAID" is better side here. You will certainly notice a difference in time it takes to load large prog's like Photoshop & such as well as making files load much faster. You are splitting the load across two drives and two IDE channels so you most definitely see an increase in performance and a decrease in HD activity time. Yes , RAID 1 will slow you down a bit as everything is written twice, but I think we are talking about RAID 0 (striping).
 
T

TomServo

Guest
#10
Almost forgot the point of this thread. :) You can achieve better performance using a separate card for your RAID controller, but not always. It depends on the design of the card itself and how much of the processing load it handles for the data transfer and HD control. I would think that a higher quality card would need less from the CPU than a cheap card or even some of the onboard IDE Raid controllers.

Not to mention that your HD's will probably last longer in the long run as they are being utilized half as much. :)
 
D

Druce

Guest
#11
just remember hardware raid 0 is the best, if you use software (as in XP's dynamic volumes) if you loose your boot drive or something happens to one of the two raid 0 drives, you loose everything....
 
G

GOTO10

Guest
#12
Originally posted by stuy_b
They might.. but for home use.. the difference is negligible. :)
Last time I checked, a home user still loads files and apps....

If he/she does, he/she is looking at a 60-100% speed increase in load time...

I'd call that 'more than negligable'.... In fact, I'd call it 'significant'.
 
S

stuy_b

Guest
#13
Back to the point of the thread!,,, Trip, PCI is faster than ISA, and I think you'll find not many ISA cards around these days.
 
#14
Originally posted by Druce
just remember hardware raid 0 is the best, if you use software (as in XP's dynamic volumes) if you loose your boot drive or something happens to one of the two raid 0 drives, you loose everything....
If something happens to a RAID-drive running RAID 0 all is lost regardless of hardware or software.

About the speed. ALL RAID combinations except RAID 1 is faster than just running a single drive. RAID 1 is only slower if the drives are on the same cable.

Back to the thread. PCI (32 bit) is much faster than ISA (8-16 bit). A controller card (PCI) will be just as fast as a built-in controller. Disclaimer: I'm not sure if the PCI bus or the IDE bus is the faster. If PCI is still faster the card will be just as fast as the built-in.
 
W

War Priest

Guest
#15
Personally, I think a p pro with a 1gig drive and win95 is best. Any ISA card and serial mouse will do. Make sure you have at least 16mb of ram so you can rock.

Whats also cool is that I dont have to waist money on a cpu fan, heatsinks rule baby....:eek:
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me ...
Xie
What a long strange trip it's been. =)

Forum statistics

Threads
61,961
Messages
673,239
Members
89,017
Latest member
bettyicrewsi