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

Storage SSD's - SATA II/III ?

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by specofdust, 27 Jan 2013.

  1. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    Hey lads,

    Lookin' into getting an SSD. Just wondering:

    As far as I can tell there's no real point in spending extra to get a SATA III one. It's just I'm seeing an OCZ Vertex Plus 240 on Scan for £90, or in SATA III land, an OCZ Octane for £118.

    Can anyone tell me any reasons beyond benchmarking that I want to spend the extra £28?

    Cheers all.
     
  2. elAwesome

    elAwesome What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    1 Nov 2012
    Posts:
    214
    Likes Received:
    3
    If the price difference is only 28 pound, go get a SATA3 SSD. The main difference will be booting time and copying stuff. In other cases, you won't feel a big difference.
    But for 28 pound - get SATA3! (make sure your mobo actually has a SATA3 connection..)
     
  3. mrbungle

    mrbungle Undercooked chicken giver

    Joined:
    20 Sep 2004
    Posts:
    5,307
    Likes Received:
    165
    The vertx plus is actually a solid drive, I have one in a machine and its never given me a problem.

    That said while neither is a top end drive id prob stump up the extra for the octane.
     
  4. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    Is there actually any evidence of this though? From what I can tell, aside from benchmarking, the differences in performance are fairly minimal.

    I'm curious, never had an SSD, in what ways does it let you down? I mean, is it noticably slow to seek, or to load large files, or what?
     
  5. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
    What you get from getting a SATA 3 SSD, is that it's speed (assuming you are looking at a good one, and not a low end one, of course), is the file transfer of small files will be faster than a SATA-2 SSD, just because the SATA-3 SSD would be faster due to newer technologies, and cheaper parts allows manufacture to get and use faster parts (controlelrs and memory chips)

    Here is my SSD (OCZ Vertex 4 256GB). I am on SATA-2
    [​IMG]

    Look at 4K numbers. Notice how far it is form reaching the maximum of SATA-2.
    Even 512K number, I am close, but reaching the max of SATA-2. And most if your files are between 4K and 512K. So you won't see a performance hit, unless you do something like a very large file transfer from 1x SSD to another or duplicate it. In any case, that SSD will be ready for your next computer upgrade that will have a SATA-3 or faster controller.

    My recommendation for an SSD, as synchronous memory SSD, as they have 5 year warranty and not a 3 year warranty or less like asynchronous memory SSD's. Why the warranty is shorter? Because the amount of writes is limited. Also benchmark performance of synchronous reflect better real world results than asynchronous SSD's. What I like about synchronous SSD is that the writes are so high, that you can use it as an HDD without any worry or concern, and it pass 5 years without issue. If you don't do any write intensive tasks like programming, or rendering stuff, than don't worry, asynchronous will be just fine.

    My recommendations are:
    -> OCZ Vortex
    -> OCZ Vertex 4
    -> OCZ Agility 4 (asynchronous)
    -> Corsair Force Neutron GTX
    -> Corsair Force Neutron (asynchronous)
    -> Corsair Force GT
    -> Corsair Force GS
    -> Crutial M4
    -> Crutial V4 (asynchronous)
    -> Samsung 830 Pro
    -> Samsung 840 Pro (840 non-Pro ONLY if you just play games or something, it uses TLC memory, so it has the lowest amount of writes)
    -> Intel 520 series.
     
    Last edited: 27 Jan 2013
  6. rollo

    rollo Modder

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,865
    Likes Received:
    126
    You will struggle to notice the dif outside of benchmarks.

    It may boot faster if you care for such things.

    It may also copy a bit faster but personally I'd buy neither drive

    Samsung 830 840 are better and similar money.
     
  7. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    The 830's or 840's (not sure which, looked at one or the other) seem to be up in the £130 region, while I'm looking at the £90, that's quite a difference.

    Frankly, I don't reboot very often as it is, and I don't care about SSD to SSD transfers because It'll be only only SSD, everything large and long term which isn't a program will be living on my server anyway. Reckon I'll go for the cheaper SATA II models then.
     
  8. Harlequin

    Harlequin Modder

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,074
    Likes Received:
    179
  9. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
    Good to know! Thanks
     
  10. MrGumby

    MrGumby CPC 464 User

    Joined:
    27 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    1,437
    Likes Received:
    30
    Got 4 crucial m4s from 64g to 256gb all been flawless and firmware updates are regular and non destructive.
     
  11. elAwesome

    elAwesome What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    1 Nov 2012
    Posts:
    214
    Likes Received:
    3
    My evidence is my experience. I have two Samsung 830 SSDs.
    I used to run them in a SATA2-machine and recently built a new SATA3 one.

    The boot time is now half as much, and general computing also feels better (like loading big apps, Photoshop for example).
     
  12. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
    What Windows do you have? and time does Windows takes to load (after the BIOS/UEFI does it's thing to start the computer, and to the desktop (Or Start Screen if you have Windows 8)
     
  13. mrbungle

    mrbungle Undercooked chicken giver

    Joined:
    20 Sep 2004
    Posts:
    5,307
    Likes Received:
    165
    The Vertex drive you are looking at uses a indilinx controller and in the early days prehaps these may have given you problems with stability.

    Latest firmware on mine and it has been super, decent reads and great desktop performance.

    Only way you would notice any performance issues compared to a sata 3 drive would be if you benched it, in real use it feels pretty much the same as any other SSD.
     
  14. elAwesome

    elAwesome What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    1 Nov 2012
    Posts:
    214
    Likes Received:
    3
    I'm actually running Mac OS X on my PC (hackintosh).
    Before, I used to have a real Mac Pro.

    Time to load the OS was about 15s on the Mac Pro, now it's 5s (after UEFI) to reach my desktop.
    Windows takes a bit longer, about 8-9s to reach the login screen (Win7), on the Mac Pro, it took 14-15s aswell.
     
  15. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
    Well you are confusing a lot of things and ending up with the wrong conclusion.
    1- OEM computers with BIOS will always boot faster than a custom build computer with a BIOS, for the simple reason that the BIOS system only needs to detect a few specs that may change, the rest is the same, on a custom build computer, the BIOS need to scan everything to cover the millions of possible setups and arrangement.

    2- Mac OS X in the recent versions of it, support fully UEFI, a new technology replacing the aged old BIOS, which allows communication with the hardware inside your computer and go: "What's your specs?", and can detect and scan everything simultaneously, and not one by one like the BIOS.Plus, once it's done and starts the OS, the UEFI communicates with the OS all it's findings. While in the BIOS doesn't do that. So Windows (or Mac OS or wtv), needs to re-scan your hardware AGAIN, before startup.
    Windows 8 is fully UEFI ready, and this is how fast it starts up:

    (and that was on an alpha build of Windows 8)

    ASRock
     
  16. Seb.F

    Seb.F Minimodder

    Joined:
    17 Nov 2011
    Posts:
    502
    Likes Received:
    9
    If it helps, one of the office Dell machines with windows 7 and a SATA 2 port/SSD boots a hellalot slower than my HTPC with a SATA3 port and slow'ish (380MB/s) SATA3 SSD.
     
  17. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
    Well your computer needs to connect on the domain and also you have enterprise level A/V which are usually aggressive and scans the OS before it boots.
     
  18. elAwesome

    elAwesome What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    1 Nov 2012
    Posts:
    214
    Likes Received:
    3
    Goddammit, how come you know such a hell lot of things?

    I was actually comparing times AFTER loading BIOS/UEFI, that means loading the system, which is AFAIK mainly a drive-based task on both machines. Therefore, I came up that my custom built SATA3 is roughly 3x as fast as my old SATA2 rig.

    Am I still confusing things?
     
  19. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    710
    I don't know why I know so much! I can't stop! :lol: :D

    To answer your question:
    Still. If the system has a BIOS, the OS will need to rescan your hardware, 'cause it doesn't know what you have and what drivers to load.

    While if it has UEFI, the OS knows exactly everything and just loads the driver and itself. Hence why on the previously mentioned videos, you see Windows 8 booting in a flash, you don't even the Windows load screen.

    So if you want to compare things, you need to the same system with the your SATA-2 and SATA-3 SSD, with the same OS, same updates, and same drivers. Now, there is another factor that comes into play. SATA-3 is technically suppose to be naturally faster as it's a next gen SSD, which usually translate to higher performance. Of course, it depends on which SSD you have If you have a super fast SATA-2 SSD but a super duper slow SATA-3 SSD, then you'll get different results.

    So really what you want to do, is use the same SSD, same system, and switch your SSD from the SATA-3 port to a SATA-2 port and see how it compares.
     
  20. elAwesome

    elAwesome What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    1 Nov 2012
    Posts:
    214
    Likes Received:
    3
    Alright, I see. Thank you very much!
     
Tags:

Share This Page