1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Storage SSDs on SATA 2

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by docodine, 29 Aug 2012.

  1. docodine

    docodine killed a guy once

    Joined:
    10 Feb 2007
    Posts:
    5,084
    Likes Received:
    160
    Looking for someone with a Crucial M4 connected via a SATA 3 interface to run the AS SSD benchmark (or anything really), I'm curious to see how much faster my drive would be if it wasn't crippled by SATA 2.

    My results:
    [​IMG]


    EDIT:

    Found results elsewhere, here they are if anyone is curious:
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: 29 Aug 2012
  2. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
    You should not see any perceivable performance difference if it's on SATA-2 in real world usage. As long as you don't transfer SSD to SSD or duplicate 1080p movie files (several GB) or something really big like that (cause that would be reaching sequential speeds, which obviously is limited). The rest is all about benchmark score.
    I would strongly suggest to only get 120GB or 250GB drives. They are best for your money, and you'll have plenty of room for OS + software, and possibly a few games, and files, depending which size you get, and how many programs you have installed, and how many and how big your files are.


    While it is not the same benchmark software, here is my OCZ Vertex 4 250GB on SATA-2, if it may help your research:
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: 29 Aug 2012
  3. docodine

    docodine killed a guy once

    Joined:
    10 Feb 2007
    Posts:
    5,084
    Likes Received:
    160
    [​IMG]

    My results with CDM, Crucial M4 64GB on SATA 2
     
  4. Bloody_Pete

    Bloody_Pete Technophile

    Joined:
    11 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    6,961
    Likes Received:
    418
    [​IMG]

    Thats what I got last time I ran it...

    Edit: Just rand CDM:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: 29 Aug 2012
  5. lancer778544

    lancer778544 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jan 2011
    Posts:
    2,844
    Likes Received:
    351
    Here's my Corsair Force 3 120GB on SATA 2 via the NVidia 780a SLI chipset on my motherboard:

    [​IMG]
     
  6. docodine

    docodine killed a guy once

    Joined:
    10 Feb 2007
    Posts:
    5,084
    Likes Received:
    160
    Pete, that's SATA 3 right? Thanks for the contributions all
     
  7. Bloody_Pete

    Bloody_Pete Technophile

    Joined:
    11 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    6,961
    Likes Received:
    418
    Yeh, on my M5Gene :)
     
  8. PocketDemon

    PocketDemon New Member

    Joined:
    3 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    139
    Just to note, Goodbytes & i disagree about the perceivable difference but, as it's discussed here, then there's no point in repeating.

    (though GB hasn't responded as to whether the SSDs he owns were, in retrospect, a waste of money in his opinion - given that there's less of a difference between what he bought & a mid range 6Gb/s SSD on his 3Gb/s sata controllers vs the 6Gb/s to 3Gb/s difference)


    & i, personally, would really suggest limiting it to buying a 240/256GB SSDs now as they really are the best value for money atm; however a 120/128GB would be second best.

    (so i don't fundamentally disagee with GB - just amending it slightly)
     
  9. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
    Yes PocketDemon.. SSD's are a waist of money. Let's go all using floppies and cassettes as YOU suggested.

    You will NOT see a difference between 250 and 230 MB/s on 512K unless you do SSD to SSD transfer of large files, or loading some super large project, or alike tasks. You won't see a difference in games, in opening the great majority of programs, nor Windows.

    However, you'll do see a faster system boot, and that has to do more with a newer motherboard that uses UEFI with Windows 7 and 8, not really because of SATA-3, because Windows files are mostly small files. I know that you'll get a stopwatch and then point me some milliseconds difference and how it's night and day, when it's not. And yes, we all should keep 50% of our SSD unformatted as well, so that it last longer and performance isn't reduce by 1% after 20 years. Mixed with the fact that we should get an HDD with our SSD, and put every program, files, games, index file, page file, and everything else on the HDD instead... you know what? Let's just leave the SSD blank at that rate.

    Does anyone, here (except PocketDemon), cares that their SSD MIGHT reduce in performance by 5-10% after 4-5 years, which by that time you'll probably buy an even faster SSD, bigger capacity, and cheaper than right now?

    Or let me ask that question differently: Do you prefer to use fully your SSD, enjoy bit of it, and your system, for several years (possibly 5 as that's the usually warranty of sync based nand SSD's), and use your system like before, the normal (minus defrag) way, and not worry about anything?

    Or, do you prefer, to be concerned and worried for the rest of of your SSD usage on a MAYBE, possible noticeable reduction of a small percentage of performance down 4-5 years, which by then, you'll most likely be looking at a bigger capacity SSD, with improved technology, cheaper price too, than right now? "Oh no, I saved my download on my SSD, I must not do that!", "Oh wait I must move the index file, or disable that feature, also these set of features witch will affect the performance of my computer at visible levels, just to possibly keep my SSD at peek performance" "Oh wait, I must only use 70-80% of my SSD, and keep the rest of the SSD unformulated, because it might reduce a bit of performance". Come on!


    The difference between the Vertex 3 and Vertex 4:
    - Vertex 4 has been shown to be more reliable (so far) and this is probably due that they used different controller, using OCZ own custom firmware.
    - The technology they used provide similar performance between compressible and uncompressible data, which the Vertex 3 does not offer.
    - Based on benchmark that I have see, the Vertex 4 perform better than the Vertex 3 in real life situations.
    - My benchmark score reflects closely to the Vertex 4 on SATA-3 on the areas that maters the most.
    - Plus, a friend of mine, which have the same needs as me and similar to here, gamers, has the OCZ Vertex 4, and upgraded his computer (Core 2 Quad - SATA2, to a Core i7 2600K SATA-3), and noticed no noticeable difference in performance, and we test time based test, from compiling large (same) C++ project, to gaming, and such, and we get the same results, and he has a faster CPU and RAM than me. His Windows 7 does start faster than mine (11sec instead of 15sec), but that has most likely has to do with UEFI system (I have the good old BIOS system), and faster RAM and CPU. His boot timing were slower than mine on his old computer.

    So no, I don't regret my purchase at all. And I think, while you are right (sometimes), you look at exclusively at benchmark scores, and you think that a 1 point difference is the end of the world. And you are pushing people to NOT to enjoy their system, with ridiculous tweaks they need to do, which impairs their computer experience (basically crippling Windows).


    And your recommendation doesn't make sense. You are basically saying:
    - if you want SATA-3, go buy a new motherboard + CPU + possibly new RAM, or get those 500$ SATA-3 PCI-E cards. Or,
    - Buy the crummiest SSD, you can find, when you can clearly see that their is a large difference in performance in real world. And then tell me that basically that IF few points difference isn't much in benchmarks on the measurement that really maters isn't much difference, then we can like this at every step and come down to floppies or wtv you said.

    And now, on the other thread, you are pulling out form your ass, that SATA-2 SSD on SATA-2 is somehow more performance, than a SATA-3 SSD (which also has improved algorithm and/or chips and/or controller to boost performance on small size files,which is what maters the most for our needs) is MUCH slower on SATA-2, and that its a waist of money.

    Guys you better get you popcorn out, because its going to be a long and enjoyable.
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: 29 Aug 2012
  10. Harlequin

    Harlequin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,071
    Likes Received:
    179
    [​IMG]

    Crucial M4 on a Marvell 88SE9128 Sata 3 controller.....
     
  11. PocketDemon

    PocketDemon New Member

    Joined:
    3 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    2,107
    Likes Received:
    139
    Pete? Who's Pete?

    Naturally, the cassettes/floppy thing was about taking going for something less fast & less fast &... ...to the extreme... ...as was a comment somewhere else that 'if' i wanted a SSD to always be at 100% performance then i'd never un-box it.


    Right to then correct your nonsense 'claims' -

    1. i have *never* said that people should leave 50% of the SSDs unused...

    i have very clearly stated that the only reason why there's so much OP in this machine is that i don't need the space...

    ...i have very clearly recommended a min of 7% extra OP & maintaining 15% free space (the latter of these you have not disagreed with) - which is <21% of the available space...

    ...& i have stated that personally i go for a total of 28% OP (so, 21% as the 830s already have ~7%) maintain 20% free space - which is <37% of the available space.

    So where you have gotten 50% from is a mystery.


    2. i certainly have agreed with you about keeping stuff on a SSD rather than a HDD so what you've written there is a complete fabrication.


    3. & i have *never* said to buy a shonky SSD or that you *must* have the latest gear; instead i have stated that -

    (a) i believe you are wrong here (& have put up data & arguments to demonstrate stuff which you've not actually countered in any meaningful manner)

    (b) but that, 'if' you were correct, there would be no point in buying anything more than a 240GB async SF or a 256GB M4...


    Now, to cut past the rubbish you've written...

    (i am pretty annoyed btw as there's no need to make crap up for no reason - hence the 'slight' degree of sarcasm when explaining stuff below - well, i'm not a damn robot)


    What i explicitly have pointed out is that, going from a reasonable 240GB SF (the V3) on a 6Gb/s to a 3Gb/s connection loses between ~22% for a heavy workload & for a light workload it is ~33% slower.

    Whilst, going from a 240GB V3 to a 256GB M4 on a 3Gb/s controller (working the figures the other way than previously written) then the latter is ~14% & ~9% slower respectively.


    Now, first off, these are *NOT* comparable %ages as the latter ones are post the original losses by going down to the 3Gb/s controller - so they actually become 33% & 39%.

    Secondly, these are average data rates utilising the actual data sizes & actual frequency (in a mixed workload) *NOT* some crappy b/m that only looks at a very ltd set of i/o sizes where every part of the test is repeating the same i/o size a stupid number of times.

    & thirdly, i have accepted completely that the 240GB V4 is a better choice for your programming *AND* note that it is a faster drive than the 240GB V3... ...albeit that it will not be significantly faster on a 3Gb/s controller.



    However, since you have explicitly stated that a drop off of between 22 & 33% is immaterial & will never be noticed, how can you then claim that an overall drop off of approx 6-11% because you're ltd to a 3Gb/s controller is more significant than a 22-33% one?

    Ummmm... well which is the bigger %age loss?

    Well, what you have said just does not make any kind of sense as, seemingly, you have some perverse perceptive abilities that notice smaller changes more readily than bigger ones...

    ...so i would like you to explain your reasoning as you have not done so.



    Separately, i have also explicitly pointed out that a drop off of between 22 & 33% that you get by going from a 6Gb/s to a 3Gb/s controller, is actually ~the same drop off you would see on a intel/amd 6Gb/s controller going from a 256GB V4/830/etc to a 240/256GB A3 or M4.

    [NB to be as accurate as possible here, the 22% drop off for a heavy load would be going down from a 256GB 830/V4 to between an A3 & intel 330 (the M4 is slower)...

    ...& the 33% drop off for a light one would be going from a 256GB 830 to a 128GB M4 & from a 256GB V4 to a 120GB async nand SF (both of which are obviously slower still).]​

    So means of very complex arithmetic, if a drop of between 22 & 33% will happen if you make one change... ...&, independently, a drop off of between 22 & 33% will happen if you make another... then... mmmmm...

    ...give me a minute to work this out as it's very difficult...

    ...oh, there's a drop of of between 22 & 33% for either reason.

    Thus, since the effects are the same - again i would like you to explain your reasoning as you have not done so.


    So, overall, it is *NOT* me saying that people should buy a mid range SSD as there will be no difference (as i disagree with you completely) - but, instead, it is the actual implication of your argument.



    [Edit]

    Where exactly have i written anything to the effect that -

    i cannot see any typos that refer to any SSD that's not a 6Gb/s, so i have no idea what you're on about...

    ...well we're obviously discussing 3Gb/s & 6Gb/s sata controllers so unless you're deliberately misreading stuff to pretend that i'm suddenly using "controllers" to talk about the ones inside SSDs???
     
    Last edited: 29 Aug 2012

Share This Page