Installed a Sata II drive and under hardware management it shows up as
Primary IDE Channel - DMA Mode 5. In the Bios I have SATA enabled and
when I look at the specs of the drive in the bios it shows SATA II
3.0, etc. Any ideas? Thanks.

Asus A8AE-LE Mb
ATI Chipset

Previously ephedralover@hotmail.com wrote:
Is there some problem? Or do you just want the right
thing displayed?

Arno

On Mar 9, 4:46 pm, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to mention the drive is performing slower than the
Pata drives. Benchmarking comes in at about 20% slower.

Previously ephedralover@hotmail.com wrote:
Might just be a slower drive. SATA does not need to be faster
than UDMA, since the bottleneck is not the interface, but
the drive itself. Anyways, an SATA interface cannot operate
in UDMA mode, this is a display bug or software old enough not
to recognize SATA.

There is one possibility for the slower speed, though:
If the SATA controller is connected via the PCI bus, but the
PATA drives are connected directly to the chipset internal bus,
that may cause some slowdown, since a slower PCI implementation
may start to be a problem around 70-80MB/s or so.

Arno

ephedralover@hotmail.com wrote:

I suggest that you start by running HDtach on that SATA HD (running as
close as possible to standalone under XP), then compare the max. read
STR you see on the graph with the max. read STR for that HD listed at
www.StorageReview.com. If they are close, your hardware is working
fine, regardless of the artificial DMA mode displayed.
--
Cheers, Bob

On Mar 10, 4:06 am, Bob Willard <BobwB...@TrashThis.comcast.net>
wrote:
Tested both drives. Sata comes in at 102mb/sec for burst and average
read at 57mb. The Pata drive came in at 84mb/sec burst with 54mb of
average read.

I think the Sata port on this board maybe via pci like Arno said.
Would a 100mb be about the limit for a pci routed Sata port?

Previously ephedralover@hotmail.com wrote:
Then the SATA does definitely not run as UDMA5, since that has
a practical upper speed limit at 90MB/s (assuming you did not mean
the milibits = mb you wrote ;-).

Might even be lower. Theoretical PCI bandwidth is 135MB/s, but
real values are typically lower. Hiwever I think that the
speed numbers for SATA you quote are perfectly fine and
you do not have any speed problem.

Arno

<ephedralover@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173561602.219988.81940@h3g2000cwc.googlegrou ps.com...

ephedralover@hotmail.com wrote:
So it isnt 20% slower at all.

The difference is likely to be due to the physical detail of the drives
being different, particularly sectors per track.

No it isnt.

Nope. Its lower than that.

"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:55ehu3F24qrrkU1@mid.individual.net
Pity SATA can be just PATA with a serial bridge chip on top of it,
you babblebot moron.

But recognize it for what it sees. It doesn't make things up.

On Mar 10, 1:53 pm, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
Thanks for your info and others. New to the HD world.

<ephedralover@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1173726109.549643.165500@h3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com
Utter nonsense, as always from our babblebot.

133MB/s (not 135) is the clockrate multiplied with the datawidth of the PCI bus.
It's not the bandwidth available for DATA.

Because of your utter nonsense about the theoretical bandwidth number.
The data bandwidth (MB/s to you and me) obviously depends on the overhead
(commands, protocol) that is needed to get data transferred to begin with,
whether that is for PCI itself and/or what is connected to it.


Which is no reason to lie.

On Mar 12, 1:14 pm, "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply...@myweb.nl> wrote:
Who's lying?

<ephedralover@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1173800117.529584.52610@j27g2000cwj.googlegro ups.com
The one that I was talking to in that sentence.
The one that said that the suspect drive was performing 20% slower.

Oh, hey, isn't that you? What a coincidence.

Previously ephedralover@hotmail.com wrote:
My advice is to ignore Folkert. He lives by spreading his hate
for everybody that does not bow to him as superiour master of
this group.

Arno

On Mar 13, 9:43 am, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
Ah, yet another mama's boy douche bag, yep, the groups are full of
them.

<ephedralover@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1173809316.969270.145110@p10g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com
Talking to your mirror image again, Arnie?

Right, and you are obviously not one of those. Now, why do I believe that.
Obviously it's because of the choice of your words.
A regular altar boy, operating under his own name.

On Mar 13, 2:24 pm, "Budd" <B...@Budd.com> wrote:
Obviously you love the use of obviously because you too are obviously
a recovering
alcoholic with a shampoo bottle fetish, obviously.