Sata 3 Add on card?

[casey10]

Im looking for a good cheap one, as I only will need 2 sata 3 ports on it my HDD and my SSD because my board can only support sata 2 im looking for an add on card this is my motherboard MSI 880GM-p51 so it only needs to have 2-3 Sata 3 ports on it .

 

[JohnnyLucky]

You might want to give the ASUS U3S6 add-on card a try if it is still available.

Here are some posts I made last January about that card:

I'm sitting here with the ASUS U3S6 installed in a PCI-e 2.0 x16 slot in my Asus Sabertooth 55i LGA 1156 motherboard. Windows 7 64bit didn't have any problems recognising it.

Although Asus listed my motherboard as being compatible it does not have a PCI-e 2.0 x4 slot for the card. I've got two x16 slots, three x1 slots, and one legacy PCI slot. The thing about those two x16 slots is that if you have two video cards, then they each drop down to x8. Since I never planned to use two video cards it didn't matter. I tried to find out if adding the U3S6 would trigger the change. I dug down into the Asus forums. I found people asking but nobody replied - zip, zero, zilch!!! I checked technical reviews for all three versions of the motherboard. One of the reviews for the brand new Sabertooth P67 LGA 155 indicated if only one video card is used, then the second slot still functions as x16. Hoping it's the same for my motherboard.

Well, I am disappointed to find out that using the Asus U3S6 card in one of my
motherboard's PCI-e x16 slots causes the PCI-e x16 slot with the video card to
run at x8. However, that may not be a disaster. I seem to recall reading that
the difference between a gpu running at x16 and x8 is not that bad. I decided to
do a little research and found a detailed technical review published last March
over at techpowerup.com. They tested a GeForce GTX 480 running at x16, x8, and
x4. I was in for a surprise. Here is a brief quote from the review:

"NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 480 is a very fast graphics processor. To maintain its
speeds, it would hypothetically require high system bandwidth, leading one to
think that lesser PCI-Express configurations would cripple it. The theory
couldn't be more wrong, as seen by the mere 2% performance loss going from x16
to x8 (which reduces bandwidth by 50%). To cite results from one of the latest
and resource-heavy games in our bench, Collin McRae DiRT 2, that translates into
something like 63.2 FPS vs. 62.1 FPS, at 2560 x 1600 pixels resolution - barely
a difference."

Here is the link to the review:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GTX_480_PCI-Express_Scaling/1.html

In a different review published in September 2009, techpowerup.com conducted
similar tests with a Radeon HD 5870. Although there were some differences, the
results were similar.

Here is a link to the review:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_5870_PCI-Express_Scaling/

I am not a hardcore gamer so I am okay with a minor performance hit. Of
particular interest was the testing done with a 30 inch monitor at 2560 x 1600
resolution. I am getting ready to purchase just such a monitor for mainstream
professional work.

 

[casey10]

My board only has a PCI express 2.0 x16 slot though can i even add a add on card now that im thinking about it?

 

[JohnnyLucky]

The PCI-e 2.0 x16 slots are backward compatible with PCI-e x8 and PCI-e x 4 cards. No problem.

Looks like the Asus U3S6 is still available.

Here are some links to technical reviews:

http://www.overclockers.com/usb-30-review-asus-u3s6-addin-card/

http://www.everythingusb.com/asus-u3s6-usb-3.0-sata-3-pci-express-18307.html




Here is a link to a video clip about the card:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S2DqlUhiMU&feature=player_embedded

 

[casey10]

No i mean i only have 1 PCI express x16 port, and i have 2 PCI x1 so ??

 

[JohnnyLucky]

You will not be able to use the U3S6 card. In fact, you will not be able to use any SATA add-on card.

 

[casey10]

That sucks, and BTW is a PCI 9500 GT A good use as a phys x card?

 

[casey10]

Best answer selected by Casey10.

 

[JohnnyLucky]

That sucks, and BTW is a PCI 9500 GT A good use as a phys x card?

The Nvidia GeForce 9500 GT video cards go all the way back to 2008. They were considered to be a low cost, entry level video card and a good value for the money. However, performance could not be compared to high end video cards. The 9500 GT was considered to be too slow for Phys X performance.

 

[casey10]

What's a good PCI Phys X card?

 

[casey10]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816115099

This would work

 

[JohnnyLucky]

In 2009 the Nvidia 2XX series cards were considered to be suitable for games that made use of Phys X. I am not a gamer so you might want to go to the video card section of this forum and ask your question there. I'm sure the veteran posters can bring you up to speed on the latest Phys X developments.

If you connect a new SATA III (6Gb/s) solid state drive to the 620 which is only a PCI-e x1 card, the ssd will work but you will take a serious performance hit. The card only uses one PCI-e lane to send and receive data. Data transmission is restricted to about 300MB/sec which actually makes it a SATA II (3 Gb/s) card. Highpoint advertising only states the card is SATA III (6Gb/s) compliant. The only means a SATA III ssd will work. It does not mean the card will transmit data at SATA III rates.