EPTReally like to know since SSDs are falling to 1GB/$1 these days.
Is SSD worth it with SATA II?
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
denzelz
United States604 Posts
Really like to know since SSDs are falling to 1GB/$1 these days. | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
There shouldn't really be a significant difference for a typical desktop user in terms of performance being limited on the SATA II interface as opposed to SATA III. It's still way beyond mechanical hard drive speeds. Most of the performance loss due to the interface is just going to be sequential read speeds, which is not as important as random access anyway. It's more about the cost, whether or not it's worth transferring files off (clone the OS partition onto the SSD, or fresh install of everything?), managing another drive, etc. These types of things may or may not be big deals to some people, but they're probably more important considerations than the performance difference to a typical desktop user. No current SSDs worth getting are dropping to around 1GB/$1 though, just models nobody wants, mostly for reliability (not performance) concerns. | ||
|
jacosajh
2919 Posts
I have several of the older OCZs and they work great. I got a few for even less than 1GB/$1. I finally treated myself to a Crucial M4 and it was DOA. It made me chuckle a little bit. I have yet to RMA it. Not relevant to OP, but many will know what I'm talking about. But in any case, even if all the issues (i.e. limited writes) about SSD was true, I think it's definitely still worth getting an SSD if you spend a considerably amount of time in front of the computer. Regardless if it's SATA II or III. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
Turns out my vertex 2 is more good enough - it truly is day and night. For a while I thought of eventually picking up a vertex 3 or something to upgrade, but there's no point. Even though benchmarks suggest the difference is significant, in real world terms, it's not a big deal. Picking up a SATA3 SSD and putting it on a SATA2 controller yields very good performance, and if you ever want to take it to a SATA3 computer sometime down the line, that's good. I say go for it - you won't be disappointed  | ||
|
HavokTheorem
New Zealand250 Posts
| ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On January 14 2012 11:29 jacosajh wrote: I still think it is. I have several SATA II and SATA III SSDs and I can't tell a difference between them. But going back to regular HDDs has almost become unbearable. Which is why I started with one, and they got addictive really quick. I have several of the older OCZs and they work great. I got a few for even less than 1GB/$1. I finally treated myself to a Crucial M4 and it was DOA. It made me chuckle a little bit. I have yet to RMA it. Not relevant to OP, but many will know what I'm talking about. But in any case, even if all the issues (i.e. limited writes) about SSD was true, I think it's definitely still worth getting an SSD if you spend a considerably amount of time in front of the computer. Regardless if it's SATA II or III. You're talking about SATA2 SSDs vs. SATA3 SSDs, which is relevant but not quite the topic of discussion. The OP has a motherboard with no SATA3 ports and is considering SATA3 SSDs (and hopefully some SATA2 options as well). It really depends on the models in question, but often there's more difference between a typical (especially older) SATA2 SSD and SATA3 SSD when both are running on a SATA2 interface, than a SATA3 SSD running on a SATA2 vs. SATA3 interface. The newer drives based on newer controllers/flash tend to be faster, even if they're limited by a SATA2 interface. But the point still stands that even older SATA2 SSDs will be significantly better than mechanical storage...unless you get a really cruddy, really old model without TRIM and proper garbage collection. Issues like limited writes definitely are a physical reality and thus are true (maybe that's not the wording you intended?), but that's still not a problem on desktop computer workloads or anything to worry about ever. edit: if in general you want to look at the difference between drives on SATA2 vs. SATA3, try here: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/SSD/65 | ||
|
jacosajh
2919 Posts
I'm still confused after rereading the thread -_- Anyways, now that you mention it. So you're saying if I run a SATA3 SSD on SATA2, I can still get some benefits? Yeah, I meant that it was true that you needed to actually worry about it in any foreseeable future. Even if a ~$100 Crucial M4 was limited to ~2 years of writes, I would still get it though. | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On January 14 2012 12:13 jacosajh wrote: Anyways, now that you mention it. So you're saying if I run a SATA3 SSD on SATA2, I can still get some benefits? Well his post isn't the only potentially confusing one in this thread (mine is probably by more!). You know, I think the OP was edited, and that's what's confusing us... I just mean that for SSDs there is a positive correlation between better performance and having a SATA3 interface. Most SATA3 SSDs on a SATA2 interface will be faster than most SATA2 SSDs, because the SATA3 SSDs tend to have more modern controllers / flash / firmware that can do stuff faster. The SATA interface on the back end of the SSD is only going to be a bottleneck in some circumstances, even if it's SATA2 on an SSD that's capable of SATA3. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 14 2012 12:13 jacosajh wrote: I thought he was asking if it was worth it to get a SATA2 SSD for his SATA2-only motherboard. Implying he might get a new motherboard with SATA3 (along with SATA3 SSD) or not get a SATA2 SSD at all. Definitely go with a SATA3 drive, even with a SATA2 controller. | ||
|
jacosajh
2919 Posts
But like I said, I don't know anything in-depth about this and just going by my own personal experience. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
Terranist
United States2496 Posts
| ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On January 14 2012 13:09 Terranist wrote: your options are go with a backwards compatible SATA3 SSD and pay a premium for half the performance until you upgrade, or wait until you have SATA3 and get an SSD then when they are cheaper. i think it's a no brainer but it would depend on how much reading and writing you do with your drive really. Normally people use hyperbole for some effect such as humor or shock, but nothing comes to mind here. Or are you really saying that you get around half the performance from the SSD? Honestly? | ||
|
woody60707
United States1863 Posts
That said I have an OCZ agility 3 (games) and a intel X-25m (OS) SSD. On my X58 MB they both go about 200mb/sec (read). The SATA3 controllers I have are crap. Most SATA3 controllers are kinda crappy unless you have the newest highend MB. So is it worth it? How would I know. As a rule an SSD is the last thing you would want to upgrade. But games like Civ IV-V are helped greatly by an SSD. Loading times and such. But if the only factor is an SATA2 controller vs a SATA3 HDD/SDD, do not sweat it. In the real world you likely won't notice a SATA2 to a SATA3. But if you have a SSD, you sure as hell will notice the load time. SATA2 or SATA3 | ||
|
biaxiong
United States180 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
The more important question is whether it's worth it over a HDD, and that simply depends on your budget. They're getting near to $1 per GB, and I got mine for a little less plus a free copy of Rage. | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
On January 14 2012 14:15 woody60707 wrote:+ Show Spoiler + Let me show you the number so you have an understanding of this. SATA2 maxes out at 300mb/sec and SATA3 at 600mb/sec. In general most HDD run at 70-80/mb read speed. A WD Raptor may get up to 140ish-mb/sec. So almost no HDD can come close to fully using SATA2 on the market now. SATA(1) (150mb/sec) would be good for 99% of people. That said I have an OCZ agility 3 (games) and a intel X-25m (OS) SSD. On my X58 MB they both go about 200mb/sec (read). The SATA3 controllers I have are crap. Most SATA3 controllers are kinda crappy unless you have the newest highend MB. So is it worth it? How would I know. As a rule an SSD is the last thing you would want to upgrade. But games like Civ IV-V are helped greatly by an SSD. Loading times and such. But if the only factor is an SATA2 controller vs a SATA3 HDD/SDD, do not sweat it. In the real world you likely won't notice a SATA2 to a SATA3. But if you have a SSD, you sure as hell will notice the load time. SATA2 or SATA3 X58 came out in 2008. SATA 6Gbps was finalized in 2009. fyi. SATA 6Gbps is offered natively on the majority of all modern chipsets, you can get boards that have native support for $70 or less. | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
Now if this is a comparison between HDDs and SDDs, the SDD is much, much faster, especially for nonsequential read/write operations since its entire contents can be accessed at the same speed, regardless of position. HDDs however are much cheaper for more volume. So if you have the money I would recommend getting one of each and use the SDD for either caching if your motherboard supports it, or to run the operating system if it doesn't. If it is a choice between SDD only or HDD only, I very much doubt you will be able to live with such a small hard drive that an SDD only computer will give you. Get a terabyte or two in HDD before you start thinking about getting an SDD for faster read/write. | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
On January 14 2012 18:27 ledarsi wrote:+ Show Spoiler + Given current hardware there is absolutely no difference between SATA II and SATA III. No existing drive or other device can read/write fast enough to fill even the SATA II pipeline, much less the way, way faster pipe of SATA III. So if you have the money I would recommend getting one of each and use the SDD for either caching if your motherboard supports it, or to run the operating system if it doesn't. If it is a choice between SDD only or HDD only, I very much doubt you will be able to live with such a small hard drive that an SDD only computer will give you. Get a terabyte or two in HDD before you start thinking about getting an SDD for faster read/write. I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. You're delusional or hugely misinformed if you think SATA 3Gbps can't be saturated by SSDs. Also, SSD caching is absolutely useless if you have the money to afford a reasonably sized SSD. | ||
|
Patriot.dlk
Sweden5462 Posts
| ||
|
broz0rs
United States2294 Posts
| ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 14 2012 18:27 ledarsi wrote: Given current hardware there is absolutely no difference between SATA II and SATA III. No existing drive or other device can read/write fast enough to fill even the SATA II pipeline, much less the way, way faster pipe of SATA III. That's not true, plenty of modern SSDs go well above SATA2 specs. | ||
|
Perryy
54 Posts
| ||
|
denzelz
United States604 Posts
Thanks again for all the replies; those are certainly very helpful. I tried to look on the web for the specific scenario of a SATA III SSD on a SATA II controller but couldn't find any reliable articles. But it seems like it doesn't matter anyway. I think I plan to either get the 80GB Intel drive that Perryy linked or a 120GB one since those capacity seem to be the pricing sweet spot right now. | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/379?vs=380 | ||
|
Rannasha
Netherlands2398 Posts
Decent SSDs can saturate a SATA2 bus with sequential reads or writes, but even then they're still significantly faster than mechanical drives. So it's definitely worth it to use a SSD on a SATA2 bus and since the standards are compatible, I'd buy a SATA3 SSD with more up-to-date components and the option to get (slightly) better performance if/when you upgrade your motherboard. | ||
| ||
