Previously ahh <ahh.TakeThisOut@ahh.com> wrote:
> They always mention SATA needs less volts than parallel ATA drives. Isn't
> this irrelevant unless you say they need less watts? What are the watts of
> SATA drives compared to ATA?
They are talking about the signaling, not the power consumpltion.
Power consumption is the same as for ATA disks.
ATA 0V...5V for the signalling.
SATA uses 0V...0.25V for signalling.
One reason is that the current chip processes already
have trouble with high voltages like 5V. If you use
5V signalling you need extra buffers on the chip.
With .25V sinalling you get less noise immunity,
but doing it differentially (i.e. using two lines,
one that hat the inverse signal of the other and then
only measuring the difference at that target) you can
overcome this problem.
You can get the spec here:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.serialata.org/collateral/zipdownloads/serialata10a.ZIP" target="_blank">http://www.serialata.org/collateral/zipdownloads/serialata10a.ZIP</a>
Chapter 6 explains all the physical stuff.
Since SATA uses 0...250mV with 100R termination, you have
at most 625 uW (that is micro-Watt) per interface line
Arno
--
For email address: lastname AT tik DOT ee DOT ethz DOT ch
GnuPG: ID:1E25338F FP:0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
>> Stay informed about: What about watts with SATA?