Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel SATA 3.0Gb vs. Marvel SATA 6.0Gb

Last response: in Storage
Share
June 28, 2011 10:59:07 PM

So I have the ASUS P8P67 Deluxe Motherboard with the following connections:

4) Intel SATA 3.0Gb,
2) Intel SATA 6.0Gb and
2) Marvel SATA 6.0Gb

I understand that the Intel SATA 6.0Gb connections are faster than the Marvel connectors. My system will be using:

2) 500GB SATA 6.0 HDDs in RAID 0 (striped) and short stroked for speed.
2) 500GB SATA 6.0 HDDs in RAID 0 (striped) and short stroked for speed.
1) DVD-R Drive
1) BD-R Drive

I'm assuming, since the DVD-R and BD-R drives are probably the slowest of the bunch, they will run fine as either SATA II or SATA III. I'll possibly have to change some jumpers. Is that correct? If that's easy enough, I'll just run them on Intel SATA 3.0Gb connectors.

Now, the two different striped sets need to be fast. The first set will be my system drive, short stroked to maybe 250GB (unless someone has a better suggestion for max performance). The second set of 500GB drives will be used as my HD video files (P2, AVCCam, H.264, .MP4, XDCam EX etc) for editing in Premiere CS5 and CS5.5 in the near future. I'm guessing these drives need to be the fastest of the bunch.

So the question is for the striped System Drive(s) would you recommend using the Intel SATA 3.0Gb connectors (all of my drives can be jumpered to limit them to 3.0Gb PHY), or the Marvel SATA 6.0Gb connectors?

Seems obvious, 6.0Gb is faster, right? But I've just read of some folks having issues with the Marvel connectors on the P8P67 boards and I ask for your thoughts and experience.

Any help/thoughts/suggestions much appreciated!
a b å Intel
a c 167 G Storage
June 28, 2011 11:19:24 PM

None of the drives can saturate a sata 2 bus, let alone a sata 3 bus.
3gb or 6gb refers to the drive cache to sata speed. But the hard drive platter speed is a fraction of that, so mechanical motion will be the determining factor for speed.

Where you put them is largely irrelevant.
Just separate each of the two raid arrays.

Raid-0 does nothing for the OS drive. I think I would just not raid it.
Raid-0 helps large sequential operations, and the OS does mostly small random reads and writes.
If you really want performance for the OS, get a SSD.

As to the data drives, I suggest you conduct some experiments with your own data and programs.

One with raid-0, and the other with separating the input from the output drives. I suspect there will be little difference.

For CS5, I understand that a large amount of ram is most helpful to reduce I/O. The I/o you don't do will be the fastest of all.

Also, since 1tb drives have denser platters, they will actually transfer data faster than smaller drives. You might look into using them instead.
The maximum sustained data rates for drives is hard to unearth. It is buried in the drive specification document on the drive vendor's web site.
m
0
l
a b å Intel
a c 143 G Storage
June 28, 2011 11:21:56 PM

Intel... Intel... Skip the Marvell controller.

1) Main RAID drives on SATA 6.0 Gb/s
2) Secondary RAID drives on SATA 3.0 Gb/s, along with DVD drives.

Reason: Intel controllers support RAID & DVD and your Marvell doesn't support RAID (not all of them do) or DVD drives.
m
0
l
a b å Intel
a c 415 G Storage
June 28, 2011 11:24:50 PM

^+1 to geofelt

Even the fastest consumer hard drives barely test the limits of a 1.5Gbit/sec SATA connection - 3.0Gbit/sec and 6.0Gbit/sec are both way faster than the drive itself can sustain, so there really won't be any difference no matter which port you connect them to.

It's only the fastest SSDs, which aren't limited by a spinning magnetic platter, which can be bottlenecked by a SATA 3.0Gbit/sec connection. And even in that case the bottleneck doesn't have a huge impact because it only affects the transfer rate, not the access time - and most of the benefits of SSDs come from it's much faster access times (about 100X faster than a hard drive no matter how you connect it).
m
0
l
!