I'm confused between SATA II vs SATA III HDD. Is there any significant performance difference between them? I'm debating between these two drives:
Even with the latter having twice the cache and interface, I'm wondering if the $5 price difference is a testament to the idea that SATA III hard drives are not as fast as its hyped up to be? One would think that if there's that much improvement, it would be priced much higher, no?
Mechanical drives still can't use the full bandwidth of SATA II. The difference between SATA II and III will only be noticeable with SSDs. You are fine with purchasing the SATA II drive as it will not make a difference in preformance.
Basically SATA II has a bandwith cap at 3 Gigabits per second (375 Megabytes per second) and SATA III has a bandwith cap at 6 Gigabits per second (750 Megabytes per second). I have never seen a single mechanical hard drive go over 200 Megabytes per second so you don't have to shell out more moeny just to get a "SATA III" sticker on it, SATA II still suffices for any mechanical hard drive. In fact, the whole reason why SATA III was introduced in the first place was to prepare for SSDs that can easily break the SATA II bandwith cap.
SATA III is just a standard. SATA II is sufficient for modern drives as under general use you won't see any difference. SATA III drives typically have a larger cache to aid in burst transmission where the transmission rate is highest, but bursts are short and overall no noticeable difference would be seen in overall operation.
The only drives that can exceed SATA II transmission rates are newer SSD drives.
If youre buying it now, get the sata iii (i'm assuming your mobo has sata iii) for snits and giggles cause it's $5 cheaper with the coupon code. :D
There is no reason NOT to get SATA III drives. Just no benefit in going to that standard yet.
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Copyright 2013 © Godem Online Inc. | Web and server solutions by NewTech Solutions.