SATA II vs. SATA III using a WD VelociRaptor 600GB HDD?

 
 
 

Comments


Anonymous

Great post, thanks a lot for spending the time to put it together. I like the direction you are taking your blog. Ill be bookmarking your blog in order to keep up down the road. Hope to see more posts soon.

3dGameMan
3dGameMan's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2000
Posts: 5079

I now have a Crucial C300 SSD and will run this test again. I hope to have a new Q&A on SATA II vs. SATA III in the coming week(s).

Rodney Reynolds,
Register: http://www.3dgameman.com/user/register

Anonymous

You should get the Asus U3S6 instead of this unknown highpoint rocket adapter, because the U3S6 is PCIe x4 instead of x1, and x4 has much higher bandwidth than x1 as well as it has USB 3.0

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

Pretty much shows what we already know. The SSD's are fast enough to max SATA II, but HDD's are still very far away from it needing SATA III. I'd still get SATA III now because later it might make a difference with a SSD upgrade. 

Something to note is that the burst speeds are faster thanks to the cache, but does the SATA III allow that cache to burst faster than if on SATA II? With only 2 points I don't think so as that could be the difference of Intel vs Highpoint controllers. 

So there is no hurry for HDD users just yet, but more cache on the drive does help. 

I sleep fine at night knowing we are banning people who deserve it.  Tivon
Don't test my skills, I was trained by myself! Check out my Gaming Videos!

Velkar
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2010
Posts: 41

There are pci 16x ssds that are a lo faster then sata 3.

Anonymous

Motherboard companies putting SATA 3 is just an marketing trick really. Or if you want to be futureproof, but people swap hardware pretty often anyway. Only fast SSDs can actually use the extra bandwidth provided by SATA 3, and there aren't a lot of SATA 3 SSDs out there right now. So if you ask me, it's pretty gimmicky.

Tiv
Tiv's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/12/2009
Posts: 3584

Anonymous wrote:Motherboard companies putting SATA 3 is just an marketing trick really. Or if you want to be futureproof, but people swap hardware pretty often anyway. Only fast SSDs can actually use the extra bandwidth provided by SATA 3, and there aren't a lot of SATA 3 SSDs out there right now. So if you ask me, it's pretty gimmicky.

It's not really a marketing trick, but then again it sells. They released the SATA 3 connections before the drives can hit those speeds in order to be fully integrated and ready to go. Considering the backwards compatibility in a few years that motherboard will not need a controller card. Most of the SSD drives you see today are all made by two main corporations and when they update the SSD's to run SATA III as the new standard then things will start to take off. Sadly if HDD's do not figure out away to get faster their numbers will start to drop and fade. I have an idea that HDD's could have 1GB of cache, in theory that should work well.

Anonymous

It's hard to base any conclusions on SATA II vs SATA III with this comparison. Velociraptors, as well as all other mechanical consumer-level SATA based drives are not fast enough to saturate the SATA II available bandwidth. Obviously you get a difference in the burst speeds which are loaded from the HDDs cache memory, but that's hardly a use case. Basically, at the moment, only SSDs are capable of exceeding SATA II bandwidth, even though as far as I know only the Micron RealSSD C300 is a SATA III compatible drive that shows clear benefits of using it.