SATA Plextor PX-716A Pioneer 110D PATA comparison at Bit-Tech

I just posted the article SATA Plextor PX-716A Pioneer 110D PATA comparison at Bit-Tech.

This is interesting. Serial ATA drives and their round easy to
use cables, are fast as all get out, when it comes to hard disks. But
what’s up with optical serial drives? Wouldn’t you…

Read the full article here:  [](

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

I knew that SATA was faster when it came to hard drive use, I am glad I did not jump to the SATA DVD drive and waste the money. It appears that the speed of the media and the drive itself are the overwhelming keys not the transfer rate as the majority of most “up-to-date” computers can handle the throughput. I guess I will stick with my Benq 1640, Plextor 740a and 708a drives. :X

Poor and quick review, not very informative at all, they left out quite a bit of information, like driver versions. It all depends on the software used to burn as well. They only used one type of media, and verbatim isn’t all that good as far as the Plextor is concerned. Was write strategy on or off? Why did they continue to test if the correct speeds weren’t detected, using Nero 6.6 and still detercting different speeds, very poorly done. Come on the Pioneer DL is rated at 8X and the Plextor is rated at 6X hmmmm…which will burn faster can you guess? As far as read speeds here I consistantly hit 11 and 12X on 16X media. Was this an actuall data dvd or movie, what was used for writing?

It’s pretty pointless to compare two different drives with different specs. It would have been better to compare the PX-716SA (S-ATA) to the PX-716A (ATAPI) but even then the review would be pointless as hardware wise they’re the same drive (except for the S-ATA bridge chip in the PX-716SA drive).

ONE point not to forget is the price difference…

I’d expect the first generation of SATA DVD drives to have bugs or be slower anyway. It’s like the first round of SATA HD’s & DDR2. No-one has quite figured out how to use it right, so it takes a few trys. Comparing two different burners with different specs though is just a joke. Did they pluck a homeless guy off the street to carry out this review? And concluding that the pioneer drive is 1/3 the price, bah! What about longevity. Which drive will last longer?

By the way the Pioneer is much newer drive then the 716 anyway! Its stupid to compare those two drives. :frowning:

Yee… Philips sucks anyway:S:S:S - Just kidding:+

yep pointles comparrisson. it’s like comparing two 3D videocards. one is the X1800 PCI-x, the other the 6800GT, with AGP

I’d buy any Plextor over a Pioneer anyway, regardless of whether or not I have to wait a couple of extra seconds.

I’m not surprised at the results. Even for hard drives, the difference between PATA and SATA is almost zero as well! The only real advantages SATA150 offers over PATA are NCQ (which only helps performance by 2-3% best case) and the native command interface which helps minimize CPU overhead a bit in Winblows at the driver level. The performance difference of PATA/133 vs SATA/150 is totally insignificant as the only time any drive even comes close to either figure is when they are bursting data out of their cache. With the potential exception of the WD Raptor series, no HD in current production can even fully saturate an ATA/100 interface during sustained transfers. Most of your first generation SATA drives are actually even a trivial smidgen SLOWER than their equivalent model PATA drives are – because all of the first generation (and quite a few second generation) drives were nothing more than the exact same PATA drives with either a Silicon Image or Marvell SATA/PATA Bridge IC grafted onto the drives controller board!