SSD SATA III upper limit?

shmu26

Distinguished
Feb 18, 2014
443
1
18,815
Seeing as SATA III, which I understand is the standard nowadays, has an upper limit on data transfer, is it worth it to buy a high performance SSD?
Won't the SATA throttle the SSD performance?
If so, which SSD models are not worth it?
 
Solution
For sequential transfers (which usually means reading/writing large files) SATA III is the bottleneck for most SSDs on the market and has been for some time.

Random workloads, which usually involve reading/writing huge numbers of tiny files (which accounts for most of the workload when Windows boots, programs load and updates install), the limiting factor is usually not the interface (SATA) but with the drive itself. It's in these workloads where better SSDs can prove worthwhile.

My real issue with buying a "better" SSD comes from the fact that the vast majority of user workloads, even from heavy computer users and enthusiasts, just does not generate enough workload to allow "better" SSDs to shine. Sure, one you load up SSDs with...
For sequential transfers (which usually means reading/writing large files) SATA III is the bottleneck for most SSDs on the market and has been for some time.

Random workloads, which usually involve reading/writing huge numbers of tiny files (which accounts for most of the workload when Windows boots, programs load and updates install), the limiting factor is usually not the interface (SATA) but with the drive itself. It's in these workloads where better SSDs can prove worthwhile.

My real issue with buying a "better" SSD comes from the fact that the vast majority of user workloads, even from heavy computer users and enthusiasts, just does not generate enough workload to allow "better" SSDs to shine. Sure, one you load up SSDs with massive workloads the better SSDs will complete the tasks quicker and remain more responsive throughout the workload, but giving an SSD that much work to do is actually really hard, and only happens for some very specific workloads.

For example, Anandtech had to create a benchmark which they call "The Destroyer" (details here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9009/ocz-vector-180-240gb-480gb-960gb-ssd-review/4), because they found that "normal" SSD benchmarks couldn't separate weaker and stronger SSDs. With "The Destroyer" they can now give a very good account for how a drive performs when it's being slammed, and unsurprisingly more expensive drives tend to perform better... but it's a workload that will never be replicated by 'normal' users.

Just get a well-branded SSD, like the Samsung 850 EVO or Crucial BX100, and spend your money elsewhere. Or use the money you saved to get a larger size rather than a "faster"/smaller drive -> which is actually only faster when you hit it with a massive (usually not real-world) workload.
 
Solution
for me, what i do is just buy the bang for the buck ssd. I don't really care if it is not the fastest, as even the not-so-fast ssd's are A LOT faster than HDD's.
it is really hard to see the difference between these ssd's if you just use your pc normally.