Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

SSD Sata 2 or 3?

Last response: in Storage
Share
December 24, 2010 5:43:52 AM

I recently built a new main rig and was wanting to install a ssd.

System specs:
CPU- Amd Phenom II X6 1055t @ 2.8 ghz
Mobo- Gigabyte GA-870A-UD3
Memory- 4 Gigs 1333 mhz Mushkin DDR3
GPU- Nvidia GeForce 8400 GS
PSU- 480 Watt

Would it be worth it to buy a Sata 3 SSD or just stick with the Sata 2 SSDs?

If I install Windows 7 64 bit, Adobe CS5, Adobe Dreamweaver, Microsoft Office 2010, Winrar, other programs should I get a 32gb Sata 2 SSD or 64gb Sata 3 SSD?

Should I Go with a 64gb Velicoraptor or a SSD?

More about : ssd sata

December 24, 2010 9:05:58 AM

do you mean sata ii or sata iii? sata iii has a much higher bandwidth for transfering data. I dont thing a 64GB velociraptor exists, they are only 150GB - 300GB - 600GB.

WD Velociraptor vs SSD

The SSD will be many times faster and you will see a very large performance increase :) 

Also what version of windows is it? Home premium, Pro, Ex?
m
0
l
December 24, 2010 9:44:06 AM

There is a WD 74gb Velociraptor though.

I will be using Windows 7 ultimate along with the programs mentioned above.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b G Storage
December 24, 2010 11:38:46 AM

I don't think Velociraptors have much to offer anymore; standard HDD have better sequential read/write speed for large file and SSD have way better random access for small files and OS.

As for SATA II (3Gbps) vs SATA III (6Gbps), not even SSD reach 3Gbps so going for 6 is probably overkill.

For the Windows 7 version, you do know that Ultimate offers very little over the Pro or even Home Premium right?
m
0
l
a c 127 G Storage
December 24, 2010 11:54:26 AM

For such a new system you would want an SSD.

Velociraptor probably isn't worth its money; it gets overpowered by SSDs on random access, and gets beaten by 5400rpm disks on sequential access; so where would you need raptors for? They were excellent before SSDs came; now all that's left is basically 5400rpm disks and SSDs. The 10.000rpm disks would get exiled to the past by the newer SSDs, especially in 2011 where SSDs will enter mainstream systems.

Try looking for a 60/120GB Sandforce SF1200 SSD. But if you can wait a few months you can buy a newer 3rd generation SSD, coming in february. Either way, given your system configuration i think you would want an SSD instead of HDD as system disk.
m
0
l
a c 114 G Storage
December 24, 2010 11:56:44 AM

Depends on what ya SSD can do. Can your SSD exceed the SATA II limit ? For example:

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Micron-RealSSD-C300-SATA...

Quote:
With the RealSSD connected via SATA III, however, its performance was significantly improved--especially with regard to read throughput, where its margin of victory increased dramatically.


In the Gaming benchmark, the very same SSD in this test, did almost 30% better connected as SATA III and it did with SATA II.

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Micron-RealSSD-C300-SATA...

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Micron-RealSSD-C300-SATA...
Quote:
The Micron C300 is the fastest drive of the bunch when paired to a SATA II connection and its lead simply gets wider when connected to SATA III. In fact, burst, read, and write speeds all improve significantly when the C300 is connected to SATA III.


With 2 SSD's of that caliber, the answer is even more obvious.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
December 24, 2010 12:31:22 PM

On SSD only the 4K are important, in that case the C300 is more faster even on SATA 3Gb/s.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
December 24, 2010 3:10:10 PM

Zenthar said:
I don't think Velociraptors have much to offer anymore; standard HDD have better sequential read/write speed for large file and SSD have way better random access for small files and OS.

As for SATA II (3Gbps) vs SATA III (6Gbps), not even SSD reach 3Gbps so going for 6 is probably overkill.

For the Windows 7 version, you do know that Ultimate offers very little over the Pro or even Home Premium right?


Actually you are wrong. There are plenty of SSD's that go over 3Gbps reads. Micron C300 is one of them, its reads are only 20MB or so lower than SATA 3GBps limit however network overhead is big enough to a point of bottleneck. And I'm not even going to mention all the other SSD's that use other interfaces that murder Sata 3Gbps.
m
0
l
December 24, 2010 3:30:54 PM

^+1 thanks for clearing that up :) 

Velociraptors are not really worth the magnets they are made off any more :)  i still bought one lol

P.S Windows 7 Ultimate is as much use as the veloci
m
0
l
a b G Storage
December 24, 2010 4:29:06 PM

blackhawk1928 said:
Actually you are wrong. There are plenty of SSD's that go over 3Gbps reads. Micron C300 is one of them, its reads are only 20MB or so lower than SATA 3GBps limit however network overhead is big enough to a point of bottleneck. And I'm not even going to mention all the other SSD's that use other interfaces that murder Sata 3Gbps.
Yeah, I completely forgot about the C300 :(  I know the size of the C300 has a great impact on write performance (basically doubling every time the capacity doubles), but does it as well for read speed?

As for the "plenty of them", there is only the C300 on NewEgg, what other SSD has SATA 3? I know the next SandForce controller (SF-2000?) and the next Intel G3 will both
be SATA 3, but they aren't out yet. I think some other more enterprise oriented drives do too because they are in fact "RAID-in-a-box" (like some of those 1TB SSD at 10000$ :p ).
m
0
l
a c 127 G Storage
December 24, 2010 5:24:52 PM

C300 just barely scratches SATA 6Gbps speeds; the main benefit here is lower latencies due to faster signalling in the cable, so called 'propagation delay'. This makes the 4K scores higher than with 3Gbps interface. But not that significant effect.

6Gbps SSD would need to do 500MB/s+ sequential reads and at least 300MB/s+ writes to be 'allowed' to be called a 6Gbps SSD. Micron C300 does not pass in that regard, neither do the new SSD offerings. Naturally, Sandforce SF2000 could pass 300MB/s sequential write if we write zeroes or ones that are easily compressible. But it's real write speeds will still be below 300MB/s.

So 3Gbps is fine for SSDs for now; the rush to 6Gbps is just to make some extra cash for the parties involved (motherboard makers/SSD makers/HDD makers). 6 is more than 3, so people would think that is a good upgrade. While in fact they should be looking at SSD generations instead:

First SSD generation: single channel implementations
Second SSD generation: multi channel NAND with write-remapping in HPA
Third SSD generation: safe writes using supercapacitor; no more corruption; lower write amplification
Forth SSD generation: (speculation at this point) nested channel NAND, native PCI-express to NAND controllers; over 2GB/s speeds

So you would need to wait for native PCI-express NAND controllers before we see a performance upgrade that is 'significant' enough that it would genuinely be noticeable by a human with subjective measuring. In other words: you will actually feel the difference.

Just to be clear: virtually all the currently sold SSDs are of the second generation, and are still susceptible to corruption on power failure/fluctuation and UBER issues. The third generation will make the SSDs safe (no more corruption) and the forth generation probably will focus more on performance, and may stop using SATA interface altogether because even 6Gbps is not that much for what a native NAND controller can do.

Nonetheless, 2011 will be an interesting year for consumers looking for SSDs. :) 
m
0
l
a b G Storage
December 24, 2010 7:08:08 PM

The theoretical limit of Sata II 3Gbps is around 380MB...and it doesn't even reach that in real life. so where are you getting 500MB/s+
m
0
l
a b G Storage
December 24, 2010 11:21:31 PM

blackhawk1928 said:
The theoretical limit of Sata II 3Gbps is around 380MB...and it doesn't even reach that in real life. so where are you getting 500MB/s+
I think his point was simply that most drives are never even close to their pretended speed and therefore before "claiming" SATA III a drive should be able to do 500MB/s+. However, even if a device doesn't reach the theoretical limit of SATA II doesn't mean it won't gain from SATA III. As you get close the the maximum, the slightest bus error or any other event will have much more impact. I think the C300 is a clear example, you get close to 50MB/s more read speed when using a SATA III controller instead of SATA II even if none of those speed reaches 300MB/s.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
December 24, 2010 11:56:06 PM

I see your point. Also, if he says drives are never close to thier pretended speed, do you mean to the speed that manufacturers say they get to?...in that case, Intel says the X25-M gets 250mbps reads, mine exceeds that and gets around 270mpbs, and so do most others if properly adjusted and connected.
m
0
l
a c 127 G Storage
December 25, 2010 11:12:39 AM

blackhawk1928 said:
The theoretical limit of Sata II 3Gbps is around 380MB...and it doesn't even reach that in real life. so where are you getting 500MB/s+

300MB/s actually, since it uses 8/10-bit encoding.
3Gbps -> 300MB/s when using 8/10-bit encoding.

Same with PCI-express 1.0 and 2.0; also use 8/10-bit encoding. But PCI-express 3.0 uses more efficient 128b/130b encoding, meaning the overhead is much less.

So why don't you reach 300MB/s on the Micron C300 when connected to 3Gbps controller? Well then all the bandwidth has to be used; and there's always small gaps. So you could say 280MB/s is the actual maximum, same with gigabit you don't achieve 125MB/s of raw bandwidth outside of test conditions. Achieving 95% of the interface bandwidth is good, though.

My point was indeed to compare the Micron C300 to the current second generation of SSDs. It corrupts on power loss, unlike third generation SSDs, and has performance figures very close to current offerings. The 4K read performance, for example, is very close to Intel G2. You probably won't notice the different between Intel G2 and Micron C300; but you might notice the difference between a third generation SSD compared to a second generation SSD. And the use of supercapacitor makes those 3rd gen SSDs safer as well.
m
0
l
a c 127 G Storage
December 25, 2010 11:18:47 AM

blackhawk1928 said:
I see your point. Also, if he says drives are never close to thier pretended speed, do you mean to the speed that manufacturers say they get to?...in that case, Intel says the X25-M gets 250mbps reads, mine exceeds that and gets around 270mpbs, and so do most others if properly adjusted and connected.

Intel is rather conservative about its rated specs; they tend to be faster than the specs indicate. Much different story with Sandforce SSDs, which are rated ~280/280MB/s speeds while that can only work when writing junk data like all zeroes or ones that are easily compressible; the actual physical transfer rate on the NAND will be much lower, and this would not be indicative of realistic real-world performance.

So comparing specs from different NAND controller manufacturers may be complicated, as well when using archaic benchmarks like ATTO and HDTach, which write zeroes and thus would show a significant difference to SSDs which employ compression (Sandforce SF1200) and those who do not (Intel G2, Micron C300). For that reason, you should use a benchmark application that writes random data so you would get the true raw physical NAND write speeds, and consider any compression that SSD may have as small bonus, like 5 or 10% in reality with mixed data common on OS drive. The recommended benchmark is CrystalDiskMark or AS SSD with default settings.
m
0
l
!