oXide 0 Posted December 5, 2000 I am currently running UltraWide SCSI HD's and other devices and they are great. I want to upgrade though, and my motherboard already has ATA100 built in...I really want to get ultra160 adapter and harddrives as I've always been one for SCSI. However, this option would be like 3x more than the ATA100 alternative...I want to know what advantages there are to getting SCSI over ATA100 besides price. I know that the fastest HD's out now only go like 40megs/sec so i suppose the more bandwidth on ultra160 would only be good for RAID and multiple drive access right? Also, i remember back in the day SCSI you could read and write over the SCSI chain at the same time w/o bogging down the system (which is good for burning etc)....I ***ume this is still the case but has it chaged for ATA? Thanks Share this post Link to post
Arkos Reed 0 Posted December 5, 2000 the solution is simple : If you can afford it SCSI-160 will give you the best I/O performances, scalability and throughput. If not, don't be afraid, ATA-100 is still a good solution, but your system will become more CPU dependent as ATA drives consume up to 5x the CPU clocks SCSI does. One more thing, multiple drives accesses is no longer a problem for SCSI drives, everything works fine, for example, I currently own an Adaptec 29160 card and have 5 HDDs on it, two Ultra-160, 1 U2W and 2 UW drives, plus a CD and a Burner. I can use them all at the same time without problem, the only trouble you may encounter is PCI bus bandwidth limitations if you use the card on a PCI-32 bit slot instead of a 64Bit one. Don't be afraid though, the performances are still stellar on a 32bit bus =) Share this post Link to post
