Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Native IDE VS AHCI

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    18

    Native IDE VS AHCI

    I am using DELL desktop computer (Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, 256GB HDD, Samsung DVD R, Windows XP). Now i want to upgrade the machine and will add SATA 3.0 drive to machine as the Operating System boot drive. So please suggest me which settings should i use for the SATA controller in the bios and will be the best(choices are Native IDE or AHCI)? Which settings should be use for combination drives??

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,327

    Re: Native IDE VS AHCI

    My personal choice would be to go with Native IDE which will be best and it should work/boot properly without any problem. I am also using the same Native IDE and causing no issues till now. And for combination of drive the problem can come with your bios and goto the bios settings and select the correct hard disk to boot from and the bios must also show all the hard disk install or attached to machine. Hope you would be able to solve the problem soon.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,483

    Re: Native IDE VS AHCI

    I think you need to use AHCI to get feature like NCQ, but now a days it is unrecognizable and find no differences. Also if you will install Vista or Linux later on, then won't be any hassle, but in case, choose to install Windows XP it can create a pain because you will require to use the F6 menu during the time of setup to install the AHCI driver. So would suggest that until you are running Windows XP use AHCI.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,496

    Re: Native IDE VS AHCI

    According to me , you should go for the Native IDE option only, which is better and simple. I am telling this because you don't need the AHCI enabled, as NCQ is mostly useful in a multiuser environment or in the server type. So just opt the Native IDE and note that you select the correct Hard disk drive to boot, make this settings in BIOS. This will solve your problem of using multiple/combination of HDD. Hope you will be able to fix the problem.
    Last edited by Killen; 09-01-2010 at 09:41 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,812

    Re: Native IDE VS AHCI

    My suggestion would be to use AHCI rather than native IDE. The SATA device (i.e host bus adapter's) do communication with software's by using AHCI. This AHCI option gives you the features like hot plugging and NCQ. The NCQ feature does improvement in machine as well as HDD responsiveness, specially in multitasking environment. And AHCI stands for Advance Host Controller Interface. Hope you will be able to fix the problem.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,327

    Re: Native IDE VS AHCI

    I would suggest you to go for AHCI choice, it better compare to Native IDE. During long disk data transfer, check the CPU usage, it will be high in IDE. But the AHCI comes with good features like hot plugging and NCQ to increase the performance, lesser CPU usage, saving energy, support greater amount of hard disk, etc. Think so this is enough to go for AHCI option. Hope you do well with this AHCI option.

Similar Threads

  1. Is there any Firefox native UI released?
    By Dipanwita in forum Technology & Internet
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-02-2012, 04:01 AM
  2. Difference between Windows 7 native AHCI drivers and Intel RST drivers
    By Dakshina in forum Motherboard Processor & RAM
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 28-10-2010, 04:32 AM
  3. C++ as native code in java
    By Miles Runner in forum Software Development
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 27-02-2010, 12:31 AM
  4. Native methods of java
    By Truster in forum Software Development
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 22-01-2010, 10:52 AM
  5. Native IDE vs Raid
    By Dharmesh Arora in forum Hardware Peripherals
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 27-07-2009, 02:03 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Page generated in 1,714,017,324.10510 seconds with 16 queries