BorlandTalk.com Borland discussion newsgroups   Archives   FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  SATA vs EIDE Goto page 1, 2  Next          BorlandTalk.com Forum Index -> C++ Builder (Non-Technical) View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Danzer Guest Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 5:59 pm    Post subject: SATA vs EIDE Hello, Does anyone have any information on the perfomance gains with regard to make/build times using C++Builder 6 if one upgraded to a SATA drive from an EIDE drive. Danzer Back to top Harald Plontke Guest Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:03 pm    Post subject: Re: SATA vs EIDE Hello, Quote: Does anyone have any information on the perfomance gains with regard to make/build times using C++Builder 6 if one upgraded to a SATA drive from an EIDE drive. I just upgraded my harddisks from EIDE to SATA and hoped for a performance boost, but I recognized nothing, compile time of my projects is a few seconds faster with an overall time of 3 Minutes. It seems that opening project groups is more faster, maybe half of the time before. Greetings, Harald Back to top Jonathan Benedicto Guest Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:25 pm    Post subject: Re: SATA vs EIDE "Harald Plontke" <news (AT) plontke (DOT) de> wrote Quote: I just upgraded my harddisks from EIDE to SATA and hoped for a performance boost, but I recognized nothing, compile time of my projects is a few seconds faster with an overall time of 3 Minutes. It seems that opening project groups is more faster, maybe half of the time before. Do you think that your compile times might be because your chip isn't fast enough to take advantage of the SATA ? Jonathan Back to top Eelke Guest Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:39 am    Post subject: Re: SATA vs EIDE Danzer wrote: Quote: Hello, Does anyone have any information on the perfomance gains with regard to make/build times using C++Builder 6 if one upgraded to a SATA drive from an EIDE drive. Danzer Most SATA drives are mechanical equal to there EIDE counter parts. The continous transfer rate of a single disk is not high enough to take advantage of SATA so only your burst rate may improve. If you want real improvement consider a WD Raptor. Eelke Back to top Andrue Cope [TeamB] Guest Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:11 am    Post subject: Re: SATA vs EIDE Danzer wrote: Quote: Does anyone have any information on the perfomance gains with regard to make/build times using C++Builder 6 if one upgraded to a SATA drive from an EIDE drive. Probably none of any significance. The bottleneck will be seek times rather than throughput and the command protocal has no singificant effect on those. -- Andrue Cope [TeamB] [Bicester, Uk] http://info.borland.com/newsgroups/guide.html Back to top Andrue Cope [TeamB] Guest Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:30 am    Post subject: Re: SATA vs EIDE Andrue Cope [TeamB] wrote: Quote: command protocal has no singificant ^^^^^^^^ protocol -- Andrue Cope [TeamB] [Bicester, Uk] http://info.borland.com/newsgroups/guide.html Back to top tinyabs Guest Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:25 am    Post subject: Re: SATA vs EIDE Windows Vista supports a new disk type called Hybrid disk. It's a hard disk loaded some memory (or flash mem) and reduce boot time to few seconds. Gigabyte had a persistent ramdisk (PCI board) that support upto 4GB diskspace. If you want instant disk response and had 32GB of RAM, get Superspeed SuperVolume software to load your hdd into your RAM. Getting fast compilation is akin to CPU power and making use of precompiled headers. The few megabyte of files make little different with faster hdd. Windows cached them in memory when you read them. "Danzer" <danzer (AT) REMOVEknology (DOT) net> wrote Quote: Hello, Does anyone have any information on the perfomance gains with regard to make/build times using C++Builder 6 if one upgraded to a SATA drive from an EIDE drive. Danzer Back to top Gunnar Beushausen Guest Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:17 am    Post subject: Re: SATA vs EIDE Well, some years ago (i guess it was around 9 we had the same discussion here. Some Guy from Borland (yes thes used to care about their customers some time ago) told us that compile times are affected up to 77% by disk operations. Cheers Gunnar tinyabs schrieb: Quote: Windows Vista supports a new disk type called Hybrid disk. It's a hard disk loaded some memory (or flash mem) and reduce boot time to few seconds. Gigabyte had a persistent ramdisk (PCI board) that support upto 4GB diskspace. If you want instant disk response and had 32GB of RAM, get Superspeed SuperVolume software to load your hdd into your RAM. Getting fast compilation is akin to CPU power and making use of precompiled headers. The few megabyte of files make little different with faster hdd. Windows cached them in memory when you read them. "Danzer" <danzer (AT) REMOVEknology (DOT) net> wrote in message news:43304dbe$1 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com... Hello, Does anyone have any information on the perfomance gains with regard to make/build times using C++Builder 6 if one upgraded to a SATA drive from an EIDE drive. Danzer Back to top Ed Mulroy Guest Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:28 am    Post subject: Re: SATA vs EIDE Quote: ... compile times are affected up to 77% by disk ... operations. Things change. Hardware is not the same as it was in 1998. Back then a significant if not majority of the users were running machines that had a 16 bit wide, 66 MHz channel for disk I/O. Quote: ... thes used to care about their customers ... You are speaking of in-house developers. They still care. However there now are fewer of them, each with a heavier workload. Welcome to the world of 21st century business. .. Ed Quote: Gunnar Beushausen wrote in message news:4331408d$1 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com... Well, some years ago (i guess it was around 9 we had the same discussion here. Some Guy from Borland (yes thes used to care about their customers some time ago) told us that compile times are affected up to 77% by disk operations. Back to top tinyabs Guest Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:51 am    Post subject: Re: SATA vs EIDE That's was 98 using Win95/98 when 16Mb ram was alot. "Gunnar Beushausen" <beushausen (AT) 123q (DOT) de> wrote Quote: Well, some years ago (i guess it was around 9 we had the same discussion here. Some Guy from Borland (yes thes used to care about their customers some time ago) told us that compile times are affected up to 77% by disk operations. Cheers Gunnar tinyabs schrieb: Windows Vista supports a new disk type called Hybrid disk. It's a hard disk loaded some memory (or flash mem) and reduce boot time to few seconds. Gigabyte had a persistent ramdisk (PCI board) that support upto 4GB diskspace. If you want instant disk response and had 32GB of RAM, get Superspeed SuperVolume software to load your hdd into your RAM. Getting fast compilation is akin to CPU power and making use of precompiled headers. The few megabyte of files make little different with faster hdd. Windows cached them in memory when you read them. "Danzer" <danzer (AT) REMOVEknology (DOT) net> wrote in message news:43304dbe$1 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com... Hello, Does anyone have any information on the perfomance gains with regard to make/build times using C++Builder 6 if one upgraded to a SATA drive from an EIDE drive. Danzer Back to top Randall Parker Guest Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 4:38 pm    Post subject: Re: SATA vs EIDE Ed Mulroy wrote: Quote: ... compile times are affected up to 77% by disk ... operations. Things change. Hardware is not the same as it was in 1998. Back then a significant if not majority of the users were running machines that had a 16 bit wide, 66 MHz channel for disk I/O. Ed, CPU speeds have increased much more rapidly than disk seek times. They've even increased more rapidly than disk read speeds. I'd expect we are becoming more disk bound, not less. Back to top Harald Plontke Guest Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:33 pm    Post subject: Re: SATA vs EIDE Hello, Quote: Do you think that your compile times might be because your chip isn't fast enough to take advantage of the SATA? no, I agree with the others in this thread. Still I had a performance boost at my last HD-update 3 years ago, when i changed from an old 40GB 5400 512MB Cache Drive to a newer 120GB 7200 2MB cache (maybe 30%). Greetings, Harald Back to top Dennis Jones Guest Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:10 pm    Post subject: Re: SATA vs EIDE "Gunnar Beushausen" <beushausen (AT) 123q (DOT) de> wrote Quote: Well, some years ago (i guess it was around 9 we had the same discussion here. Some Guy from Borland (yes thes used to care about their customers some time ago) Yeah, but it was WAY before 1998! (pre-1990, about when BC++ 4.x came out) - Dennis Back to top Ed Mulroy Guest Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:12 pm    Post subject: Re: SATA vs EIDE 768MHz, 32 bit Front Side Bus vs 66 MHz, 16 bit That's probably competitive on many machines to the increased throughput in cpu's. Especially so if you consider how much more background/system processing the cpu has to do these days with XP. Also, do not make the mistake of thinking that the perceived speed of the cpu will be the ratio of its current clock speed to what the speed was back then. I just don't think that most projects will be disk bound. Of course there will be some, there always are some of most anything. .. Ed Quote: Randall Parker wrote in message news:43318c38$1 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com... ... compile times are affected up to 77% by disk ... operations. Things change. Hardware is not the same as it was in 1998. Back then a significant if not majority of the users were running machines that had a 16 bit wide, 66 MHz channel for disk I/O. CPU speeds have increased much more rapidly than disk seek times. They've even increased more rapidly than disk read speeds. I'd expect we are becoming more disk bound, not less. Back to top Ed Mulroy Guest Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:15 pm    Post subject: Re: SATA vs EIDE Quote: Yeah, but it was WAY before 1998! (pre-1990, about when BC++ 4.x came out) Sorry, but BC++ 3.1 came out in 1992 at the same time as Windows 3.1. BC++ 4 came out in 1995. .. Ed Quote: Dennis Jones wrote in message news:4331cbe6$1 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com... Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         BorlandTalk.com Forum Index -> C++ Builder (Non-Technical) All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2  Next Page 1 of 2   Jump to: Select a forum C++ Builder Newsgroups----------------C++ BuilderC++ Builder (ActiveX)C++ Builder (Announcements)C++ Builder (Command Line Tools)C++ Builder DatabasesC++ Builder Databases (ADO)C++ Builder Databases (Desktop)C++ Builder Databases (InterBase Express)C++ Builder Databases (Multi-Tier)C++ Builder Databases (SQL Servers)C++ Builder (Graphics)C++ Builder (IDE)C++ Builder (Internet)C++ Builder (Internet Socket)C++ Builder (Internet Web)C++ Builder (Jobs)C++ Builder (Language)C++ Builder (Language C++)C++ Builder (Compatibility with MFC)C++ Builder (Native API)C++ Builder (Non-Technical)C++ Builder (Students)C++ Builder (Third Party Tools)C++ Builder (Upgrade)C++ Builder (VCL)C++ Builder (VCL Components Usage)C++ Builder (VCL Components Development)C++ Builder (VCL Usage)C++ Builder (WinAPI)C++ Builder Installation Delphi Newsgroups----------------Delphi (General)Delphi ActiveX Controls UsageDelphi ActiveX Controls DevelopmentDelphi As400Delphi DatabasesDelphi Databases (ADO)Delphi Databases (dbExpress)Delphi Databases (Desktop)Delphi Databases (InterBase Express)Delphi Databases (Multi-Tier)Delphi Databases (SQL Servers)Delphi DeploymentDelphi GraphicsDelphi IDEDelphi InternationalizationDelphi InternetDelphi Internet Isapi-WebBrokerDelphi Internet WebSnapDelphi Internet WinsockDelphi JobsDelphi Language BASMDelphi Language ObjectPascalDelphi Model Driven Architecture (General)Delphi Model Driven Architecture (Third Party)Delphi MultimediaDelphi Native APIDelphi Non-TechnicalDelphi ObjectPascalDelphi OLE AutomationDelphi OO designDelphi OpenToolsAPIDelphi Reporting-ChartingDelphi RTLDelphi StudentsDelphi TeamSourceDelphi Thirdparty ToolsDelphi Thirdparty Tools (General)Delphi Thirdparty Tools (IntraWeb)Delphi Thirdparty Tools (RaveReports)Delphi UpgradeDelphi VCLDelphi VCL ComponentsDelphi VCL Components UsingDelphi VCL Components WritingDelphi WebServices SOAPDelphi WinAPIDelphi XMLDelphi Installationcomp.lang.pascal.delphi.components.misccomp.lang.pascal.delphi.components.usagecomp.lang.pascal.delphi.components.writingcomp.lang.pascal.delphi.databasescomp.lang.pascal.delphi.misccomp.sources.delphi JBuilder Newsgroups----------------JBuilderJBuilder AnnouncementsJBuilder Applet IssuesJBuilder As400JBuilder CompilerJBuilder CORBA/RMIJBuilder DatabasesJBuilder DB SwingJBuilder DebuggerJBuilder DeploymentJBuilder DocumentationJBuilder EnterpriseJBuilder HandheldJBuilder IDEJBuilder JavaJBuilder JavaAPIJBuilder Java LanguageJBuilder Java SwingJBuilder Java BeansJBuilder Java Beans UsageJBuilder Java Beans DevelopmentJBuilder JBCLJBuilder JDataStoreJBuilder JobsJBuilder LinuxJBuilder MacintoshJBuilder & MobileSetJBuilder MultiLingual AppsJBuilder Non-TechnicalJBuilder OpenToolsJBuilder Servlets (JSP)JBuilder StudentsJBuilder Team DevelopmentJBuilder Thirdparty ToolsJBuilder UpgradeJBuilder Installation InterBase Newsgroups----------------InterBaseInterBase Bug DiscussionInterBase GeneralInterBase IBConsoleInterBase OpenSourceInterBase ReplicationInterBase SQLInterBase ThirdpartyInterBase Installation Miscellaneous Borland Newsgroups----------------AppCenterAppServerEnteraVisiBroker  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.