Which connection for External HD drive?

[Happy Marsden]

Can anyone tell me, which would be faster?....

a) A 1TB SATA HD in an external PATA enclosure (fitted with a SATA-to-PATA adapter) tethered to iMac via Firewire 800 port

OR

b) 1TB SATA HD in an external SATA enclosure tethered to iMac via USB 2.0 port?

 

[Altemose]

Can anyone tell me, which would be faster?....

a) A 1TB SATA HD in an external PATA enclosure (fitted with a SATA-to-PATA adapter) tethered to iMac via Firewire 800 port

OR

b) 1TB SATA HD in an external SATA enclosure tethered to iMac via USB 2.0 port?

The USB enclosure would be faster as PATA is a slow interface. It is like having a big fire hose (FireWire) going into a garden hose (PATA adapter).

 

[Happy Marsden]

That's where I'm confused. According to this link (Tom's Hardware), PATA (at least ATA-133 PATA) is stated to be faster than USB 2.0.That's 1,064 mbps (ATA-133) vs. 480 mbps (USB 2.0).

 

[Altemose]

That's where I'm confused. According to this link (Tom's Hardware), PATA (at least ATA-133 PATA) is stated to be faster than USB 2.0.That's 1,064 mbps (ATA-133) vs. 480 mbps (USB 2.0).

But also consider the maximum speed of that adapter.

 

[Happy Marsden]

But also consider the maximum speed of that adapter.

Of which adapter, the one in the optibay? I know its PATA, but I'm not sure if its ATA-133 or ATA-66. Google was not my friend on this one. But if its ATA-133, then if the specs in the link are correct, its faster than USB 2.0.

 

[Altemose]

Of which adapter, the one in the optibay? I know its PATA, but I'm not sure if its ATA-133 or ATA-66. Google was not my friend on this one. But if its ATA-133, then if the specs in the link are correct, its faster than USB 2.0.

I am referencing the SATA to PATA adapter. Not all adapters are created equal.