Would I see much of a performance difference between SATA II vs. SATA III SSD?

[soarwitheagles]

Hi all!

Happy early Merry Christmas to all!

Each of my Gigabyte MB's is SATA III capable and I am thankful for that!

I recently purchased some SATA II SSD's that were very low priced:

Intel 320 Series 160GB $145
Intel 320 Series 120 GB $114
OCZ Vertez Plus 120 GB $80

These were the best prices I have ever seen so, I could not resist!

Ok, here is my question:

Would I see much of a performance difference between SATA II vs. SATA III SSD when connected to SATA III on my MB?

If there is a great difference, then I could always sell these SATA II SSD's and purchase a SATA III SSD.

I really like this SATA III SSD, but the price is quite high for me: Crucial M4 CT128M4SSD2CCA 2.5" 128GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive @ $219...

Would there really be much of a difference in real life scenarios?

It's me,

Soar

 

[Night Fox]

There is large difference, but if you won't want to spend the money on it, then it's probably not worth the extra time saved. I just got my dad one of those (either the C300 or the M4...can't remember), and I couldn't tell the speed difference between his computer and mine...but then, I wasn't really paying attention to comparing his computer to mine as I was comparing his new one to his old one (slow, 10-year old dell).

 

[Ste]

^^ pretty much what fox said. the difference is probably not noticeable by most humans so if you just have the cash to burn maybe you would just want it for bragging rights. ;P

 

[soarwitheagles]

There is large difference, but if you won't want to spend the money on it, then it's probably not worth the extra time saved. I just got my dad one of those (either the C300 or the M4...can't remember), and I couldn't tell the speed difference between his computer and mine...but then, I wasn't really paying attention to comparing his computer to mine as I was comparing his new one to his old one (slow, 10-year old dell).

Fox,

Thanks for the info. One more question: If I ran two Agility 2's in RAID0 would that be a large increase of speed? I have two of the Agility 2 60GB's. One is in my AMD rig and I use it for my OS, but it keeps getting more and more data written on it even though I set it up as recommended here [it only has 10GB's left]. I have another Agility 2, the exact same model, just laying around doing nothing.

I was thinking I could set up the AMD rig using both Agility 2's in a RAID0 mode. Would that give me 120GB of space as well as faster speeds?

^^ pretty much what fox said. the difference is probably not noticeable by most humans so if you just have the cash to burn maybe you would just want it for bragging rights. ;P

Thanks for the reply Ste. Well, not very big on bragging rights, but performance and reliability are huge for me.

As mentioned above, I am thinking for running two identical Agility 2's in RAID0 mode....any thoughts on this set up?

Soar

 

[kpat99]

There is a big difference when running benchmarks, real world differences will be harder to see. I have a intel 510 series ssd and because my motherboard doesn't support sata III i only get about 250 read 200 write, as opposed to 400 read if i were to upgrade my motherboard.

 

[Slaymate]

When you compare the speed differences between a SSD (SATA II or III) and a HDD suddenly the difference between 250 GB/s and 500 GB/s becomes marginal. Any SSD will give you a tremendous speed boost over a HDD so I'm of the opinion that you should just buy what your budget can afford.

If performance and reliability are important you should just buy a nice SATA III drive and forget that you ever mentioned Raid0.

 

[kpat99]

Raid 0 can be a good idea if you get a good deal on two smaller ssd's. 60 gig drives are small, but in raid 0 120GB becomes a lot more appealing

 

[Slaymate]

Raid0 is a performance booster, but it doesn't help reliability. And while Intel is suppose to be working on TRIM support for Raid when using the Intel driver, it isn't here yet. If you want performance and reliability then the best option is a good SATA III ssd in a non Raid0 configuration.

 

[soarwitheagles]

Raid0 is a performance booster, but it doesn't help reliability. And while Intel is suppose to be working on TRIM support for Raid when using the Intel driver, it isn't here yet. If you want performance and reliability then the best option is a good SATA III ssd in a non Raid0 configuration.

Yes, thank you for your insights...I too read up on Intel's proposed TRIM support for SSD's, but not sure when that will happen. Also read some on the importance of TRIM, so going without it is no longer an option for me. Thanks again for your good advice!

When you compare the speed differences between a SSD (SATA II or III) and a HDD suddenly the difference between 250 GB/s and 500 GB/s becomes marginal. Any SSD will give you a tremendous speed boost over a HDD so I'm of the opinion that you should just buy what your budget can afford.

If performance and reliability are important you should just buy a nice SATA III drive and forget that you ever mentioned Raid0.

LOL! I like your choice of words...ok, I am still battling between budget realities and use one of these inexpensive Intel 320 160gb's or of going with a SATA III similar to the Crucial M4 128, but darn, the prices are so much more! You say that in real life I will not notice much of a difference between the SATA II and the SATA III. Well, that kind of makes me lean again toward using a single Intel 320 Series 160GB.

There is a big difference when running benchmarks, real world differences will be harder to see. I have a intel 510 series ssd and because my motherboard doesn't support sata III i only get about 250 read 200 write, as opposed to 400 read if i were to upgrade my motherboard.

Yes, I looked at those 510 series...real nice but definitely out of my budget and price range.

Raid 0 can be a good idea if you get a good deal on two smaller ssd's. 60 gig drives are small, but in raid 0 120GB becomes a lot more appealing

Thanks for your nice opinion. Unfortunately, after reading more about lack of TRIM, and combined with the greater risk of failure [two SSD's vs. one SSD], I have scratched the RAID0 off my list for good.

Guys, thanks for the input. I will either use the Intel 320's, one in each rig, or sell both and go for either the M4 or an Agility 2, or a OCZ 120 GB Vertex 3 SATA III 6.0.

To be 100% honest with you, I am trying future proof for the next 2-3 years...and I am hoping the Intel 320 series would hold be over...but that M4 is tempting...but the price is what is keeping me at bay...

Anyone know of any other SATA III 120GB's that are of good price and good performance without any controller or firmware issues? I have also been looking at that Kingston HyperX SH100S3B/120G that NewEgg is selling for $174 AMIR, and it looks really good and has good reviews too. Normally, I would not choose Kingston for a SSD, but as I said, this particular model has lots of great reviews...

Any comments?

Have a good one!

Soar

 

[Slaymate]

Intel and Crucial (as well as Kingston and all the others) also have controller and firmware issues, all you have to do is visit their support forums and you'll see that regardless of the brand, or product (as in other components) every manufacturer has some failures. It may appear as if OCZ has more problems but when you sell two to three times as many products you get more support requests.

$169.99 after a rebate - Newegg.com - OCZ Vertex 3 VTX3-25SAT3-120G 2.5" 120GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

$154.99 after a rebate - Newegg.com - OCZ Agility 3 AGT3-25SAT3-120G 2.5" 120GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)