Results: PCMark Vantage
PCMark Vantage is older than PCMark 7. Yet, it demonstrates more of a advantage favoring 6 Gb SATA.
Western Digital's VelociRaptor manages to score a second-place finish in the media center performance benchmark. Bottom line, though: an SSD, bottlenecked or not, is notably faster than a hard drive's best effort.
Current page: Results: PCMark VantagePrev Page Results: PCMark 7 And Trace Next Page Results: AS-SSD Copy Benchmark
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
Far Out! I didnt realise there was such a big difference between my Raptor, and a Samsung's 840,Reply
Thanks toms, Samsung will get a few hundred out of me next pay day. :P
I have been using an M4(on SATA 3gigabit/sec) on my older media center as a boot drive and for some games. The difference from the hard drive it replaced was massive. The old hard drive is still great for storing media and files.Reply
This... was a kind of stupid test. Of COURSE an SSD is a good thing even on a SATA II connection.Reply
Does Tom's not remember the early days of SSDs, when everyone wanted one and noone could afford one? There was no such thing as SATA III back then, and if SSDs didn't give a benefit, nobody would have payed attention with how expensive they were.
Even With SATA 3Gb/s, An SSD Makes SenseI could've told you that. I put a OCZ Vertex 2 in my HP dv6t-2100 laptop a while ago and the difference was like night and day. SATA II is definitely SSD worthy!
This article measured what was intuitively obvious. My primary system's boot drive is a 3Gb/s mSATA Crucial M4; I've felt no need to upgrade. Just today I put a 128GB 6 Gb/s SSD on an old 790GX board, and the difference is amazing.Reply
IMO It well worth it, if u had the budget... (even it in sata2 mode)Reply
still the price is the issue...
hope the price will continue to decline, so it became affordable for (most of) everyone....
Yes it isReply
Combat WombatFar Out! I didnt realise there was such a big difference between my Raptor, and a Samsung's 840,Thanks toms, Samsung will get a few hundred out of me next pay day.Reply
Any SSD on 3Gb/s kill Raptors outright. Even my older X25-M does due to the sheer IOPS compared to a Raptor or any mechanical HDD.
I do need to upgrade but not for the speed, mostly for size. 80GB is not enough even for OS and a few apps. I have messed with everything from a SATA II SSD to a PCIe SSD (Revo 3) and as long as you are on SATA II or better its going to be more than fast enough.
But that said, I might just wait for Broadwell and SATA Express.
1. This test feels kind of incomplete. What i felt was the right comparison was to add a native SATA2 SSD on a SATA2 port, and then compare it to a SATA3 drive on a SATA2 port.Reply
2. The startup and shutdown times will increase once you start adding softwares to the system. Specially, an Antivirus (kaspersky internet security) makes me weep on startup on a mechanical disc.
3. Kind of stupid question : Will overclocking the CPU improve the startup/shutdown times, now that the storage bottleneck is largely removed ?
4. Can we have the time taken by each system to install all the Windows updates, just after the fresh install ?
DarkSableThis... was a kind of stupid test. Of COURSE an SSD is a good thing even on a SATA II connection.Does Tom's not remember the early days of SSDs, when everyone wanted one and noone could afford one? There was no such thing as SATA III back then, and if SSDs didn't give a benefit, nobody would have payed attention with how expensive they were.Reply
This article does give very important guideline, where people evaluate different upgrade options. Conclusion is, you don't need to replace a SATA2 computer with SATA3 computer for the mere of SSD speed benefit.