which is faster?

[anarchy0x]

I have a 320 GB SATA & a 40 GB PATA
Which of them should I use for installing XP so that programs run faster?
40 GB must be faster than 320 GB coz of its larger size
But the 320 GB is a SATA drive which is supposed to be faster than a PATA drive
thanks in advance for solving my dilemna

 

[darklord]

320 will be faster because it is SATA and most probably it will be 7200.10 series which is perpendicular recording.
This stands true assuming your 40GB PATA is older drive.

 

[teknoPhobia]

The 40 Gb is far slower the 320 GB, rule of thumb, all else being equal, bigger the HDD, faster it is.

 

[gannu_rox]

The 40 Gb is far slower the 320 GB, rule of thumb, all else being equal, bigger the HDD, faster it is.

Eh wat the???

Who said dat???

U mean to say a WD Raptor 150Gb will perform faster than a ~ WD Raptor 74GB???? ( I mean jus fer comparisons...)

Guys jus make dat point clear plz... neve heard of dat before...

 

[bhushan2k]

I have a 320 GB SATA & a 40 GB PATA
Which of them should I use for installing XP so that programs run faster?
40 GB must be faster than 320 GB coz of its larger size
But the 320 GB is a SATA drive which is supposed to be faster than a PATA drive
thanks in advance for solving my dilemna

Don't think more. Just install XP on ur SATA drive.

 

[sumeet singh]

hmmm:

 

[deathvirus_me]

Hmm , never noticed any performance difference between XP on SATA and XP on PATA ... yes ... 5400 rpm hdd with lower read buffers will mean slightly more access time , but not something drastic .. finally , it depends on how well ur XP is optimized for its performance ..

If u really want more performance out of the SATA hdd than over ur PATA , just keep the page file on the SATA drive , no matter where u install XP ..

The performance boost when using SATA drives is noticeable only when u run two or more drives in RAID ..

 

[anarchy0x]

Thanku all for replying. I guess I ll use SATA