I have SATA I, would a SSD be beneficial?

B

Boxerz

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 24, 2006
Messages
131
My motherboard is a bit old and only has SATA I but I am thinking of getting a 256GB SSD. I have read SATA III is backwards compatible to SATA 2 & 1. So I look at the transfer speeds of the SATA below:
1 150MB/s
2 300MB/s
3 600MB/s

So a SSD with seq. write speed of about 460MB/s and Read of 500MB/s would be capped at 150MB/s on my mobo?

Also, if you could recommend me a sound SSD if the upgrade is worthwhile. Currently I have (2) 500gb 7200 HDD in raid 0 for a total of 1terabyte.
 
Boxerz said:
So a SSD with seq. write speed of about 460MB/s and Read of 500MB/s would be capped at 150MB/s on my mobo?
Click to expand...

Unless you do only a lot of large transfers, your main day-to-day benefit will be from the increased seak time / random IO performance more than sequential speeds, which will make a SSD very much worth it.

I say go for it.
 
Yup. do it. Don't even need an expensive one, you could get by with a crucial m4, older intel, or sandisk.
 
Just go for a much older but new SSD. You can find Vertex 2's, Agility's, Mushkin, and Pheonix pro's pretty cheap.

You can also find Intel second generation drives cheap.
 
I do, do a lot of file large transfers, a lot of movies in the 1-2 gb range. I am transferring ten 700MB files at 800kbps from my Kingston 32gb USB to my HDD. I seem to transfer faster through my Ethernet. .
 
I do, do a lot of file large transfers, a lot of movies in the 1-2 gb range. I am transferring ten 700MB files at 800kbps from my Kingston 32gb USB to my HDD. I seem to transfer faster through my Ethernet. .
Click to expand...

Since the source can not hit anywhere near 150MB/s it will not hurt that your SSD is limited to around 150MB/s. The transfer rate would be limited to what the USB device can do which is probably 20 or so MB/s.
 
Last edited:
In general, you always benefit from SSD for lightning fast IOPS (e.g. think seeks, since there is no mechanism, seeking across an SSD is VERY fast).

However, since your "case" has to do with sequential xfer rates and not random IOPS, you actually won't see tht much benefit, in fact, in some cases your performance may actually be less.
 
What is your mobo ?

I wouldn't call 700MB or 2GB movies large in the age of blu-rays. But if you intend to put movies on the SSD (no benefit) then buy a large one, of the generation before the current for best price (Samsung 830, Crucial M4).
 
Boxerz said:
I do, do a lot of file large transfers, a lot of movies in the 1-2 gb range. I am transferring ten 700MB files at 800kbps from my Kingston 32gb USB to my HDD. I seem to transfer faster through my Ethernet. .
Click to expand...


That's more of a limit with the actual Flash Drive device, nothing more or less. Flash drives aren't meant to do many small or big file transfer fast. Kind of like comparing a floppy drive to a hard drive.
 
What most people here fail to consider is that HDs have caches. For many people that means that SSDs don't have a speed advantage.

I have several SSDs sitting around while my server has HDs. Why? Because in practice there is no speed advantage for the SSDs.

For a SSD to have any noticable advantage the CPU and OS have to be very fast.

But buy one and see if you can tell the difference.
 
GeorgeHR said:
What most people here fail to consider is that HDs have caches. For many people that means that SSDs don't have a speed advantage.

I have several SSDs sitting around while my server has HDs. Why? Because in practice there is no speed advantage for the SSDs.

For a SSD to have any noticable advantage the CPU and OS have to be very fast.

But buy one and see if you can tell the difference.
Click to expand...

Uh.. what?

SSDs are massively faster than mechanical drives in every regard. They're just more expensive per GB, so not many people are loading up servers with them unless they need the insane IOPs you can get from a raid of SSDs.
 
GeorgeHR said:
What most people here fail to consider is that HDs have caches. For many people that means that SSDs don't have a speed advantage.

I have several SSDs sitting around while my server has HDs. Why? Because in practice there is no speed advantage for the SSDs.

For a SSD to have any noticable advantage the CPU and OS have to be very fast.

But buy one and see if you can tell the difference.
Click to expand...

This has got to be the most absurd thing I've read this week.

I've never seen a single mechanical drive max out a SATA interface. A SSD however...
 
Yes there are cases where an ssd is not needed, but still, the ssd would improve performance, might just not be noticable.

I personally have never seen a harddrive cache be useful at all though.
 
In this case Samsung 840 TLC NAND SSDs seem indicated, 240 or 480 GB, low cost on sale (comparatively), good performance, good firmware and toolbox. Useful if you upgrade motherboard/CPU. The 500 version lists $350, goes on sale as low as $260 though $270-290 is more common.
Bigger is faster and lasts longer, more endurance Cycles
 
GeorgeHR said:
1. What most people here fail to consider is that HDs have caches. For many people that means that SSDs don't have a speed advantage.

2. I have several SSDs sitting around while my server has HDs. Why? Because in practice there is no speed advantage for the SSDs.

3. For a SSD to have any noticable advantage the CPU and OS have to be very fast.

But buy one and see if you can tell the difference.
Click to expand...

1. Um, OK. So please explain to me: Why is it that many forum members here for multiple years now have been starting threads asking about increasing overall system performance of their older, as examples, S939 and S478 systems on a strict budget, and the SSD is the number one item both recommended and then installed? Then like clockwork the OP comes back and says they are just amazed at how much faster EVERYTHING is on their exact same system with just the SSD installed.

And also please explain this to me: Whi is it that in every single desktop or laptop, and I mean every single one, that I've upgraded the boot drive with an SSD, the entire system performs faster and myself or whomever I do the upgrade for absolutely notices the difference?

2. In practice, have you ever replaced every single spindle HDD in your server with an SSD? I'm guessing the answer is no.

3. Absolutely false. Even the fastest SATA3 spindle hard drive will be hard-pressed to saturate a SATA1 bus. Any newer performance based SSD will just about fully saturate whatever SATA bus its spec'd at, which means it will saturate an earlier SATA revision port if plugged in to one.

4. Serious question for you: Are you trolling this thread? :confused:
 
Here are my Crystal Mark HDD specs. I'm aware my HDD is nearly maxed but at the moment, I cannot figure out how to stream videos off my 4 Terabyte NAS from my XBOX360 thus I gotta use my PC in the mean time..

Could anyone post their stats with a SSD?

NqV6GlX.png
 
Boxerz said:
My motherboard is a bit old and only has SATA I but I am thinking of getting a 256GB SSD. I have read SATA III is backwards compatible to SATA 2 & 1. So I look at the transfer speeds of the SATA below:
1 150MB/s
2 300MB/s
3 600MB/s

So a SSD with seq. write speed of about 460MB/s and Read of 500MB/s would be capped at 150MB/s on my mobo?

Also, if you could recommend me a sound SSD if the upgrade is worthwhile. Currently I have (2) 500gb 7200 HDD in raid 0 for a total of 1terabyte.
Click to expand...

No need to get an SSD with crazy sequential speeds but it will definitely help. My old SATA1 laptop could only do about 90 megabytes over SATA (so not even full speed) but I still saw a huge benefit going to the SSD.

As someone else mentioned the biggest benefit is with the random read/write iops and latency not really the sequential MB/sec.
 
Aesma said:
What is your mobo ?

I wouldn't call 700MB or 2GB movies large in the age of blu-rays. But if you intend to put movies on the SSD (no benefit) then buy a large one, of the generation before the current for best price (Samsung 830, Crucial M4).
Click to expand...

patrickdk said:
Yes there are cases where an ssd is not needed, but still, the ssd would improve performance, might just not be noticable.

I personally have never seen a harddrive cache be useful at all though.
Click to expand...

I'm an Amazon Prime member so I get free 2 day shipping. I plan on buying a SSD that I will use later when upgrading my mobo to a SATA 3 but I'll have to essentially do a total upgrade since that will affect my CPU, RAM, etc.

$172
Samsung MZ-7TD250BW 840 Series Solid State Drive (SSD) 250 GB Sata 2.5-Inch
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-MZ-7T...63929985&sr=8-1&keywords=Samsung+840+TLC+NAND

This seems to be the most sold
$188
Crucial m4 256GB 2.5-Inch Solid State Drive SATA 6Gb/s CT256M4SSD2
http://www.amazon.com/Crucial-256GB...pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1363930252&sr=1-1&keywords=ssd

My search parameters - Internal SSD, 240 - 256GB:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_p...ds=ssd&ie=UTF8&qid=1363930334&rnid=5057182011
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Crucial M4, Plextor M5P (pro version), or Samsung 840 Pro (not the standard like you linked above).
 
patrickdk said:
...
I personally have never seen a harddrive cache be useful at all though.
Click to expand...
Hah!! I bet you think breathing is overrated too :).

Try doing without either one.

To disable the drive's cache read-ahead: under linux, use hdparm -A0 /dev/sdX

"You never miss the water in the well, 'Til the well runs dry." --The Myddle Class
 
Yesterday your sig said 3800+ X2, now it says phenom and you got a more than 150MB/s bench, so clearly you have at least SATA2 on the mobo you don't mention.
 
Last edited:
Aesma said:
Yesterday your sig said 3800+ X2, now it says phenom and you got a more than 150MB/s bench, so clearly so you have least SATA2 on the mobo you don't mention.
Click to expand...

I realized I had faster than 150MB/s in the benchmark but I wasn't sure if it was due to the raid 0 setup. I just updated my sig which was quite old. I just went to the manufacturer website and now I feel like a hugeidiot. I do have SATA 2.. Well, that is good news to me as I am still in the market for SSD but I guess the information I got from this thread has still been beneficial.
 
I bought an extremely cheap SSD for my old laptop which runs a Core Duo (yes, the predecessor to Core 2 Duo) and has only SATA I ports. It was quite easily the best thing I had ever done to that laptop. Everything loads lightning fast compared to the previous hard drive, most of the time the bottle neck is now my CPU as it is over 6 years old now. Granted my sequential speeds are limited by the SATA interface, but the change is IOPS makes it feel like a completely different computer. Also, being a laptop, the power/heat/noise savings is another huge advantage to me. I would say go for the largest size SSD you can afford from a reputable brand and you will be happy!
 
CamaroZ28 said:
I bought an extremely cheap SSD for my old laptop which runs a Core Duo (yes, the predecessor to Core 2 Duo) and has only SATA I ports. It was quite easily the best thing I had ever done to that laptop. Everything loads lightning fast compared to the previous hard drive, most of the time the bottle neck is now my CPU as it is over 6 years old now. Granted my sequential speeds are limited by the SATA interface, but the change is IOPS makes it feel like a completely different computer. Also, being a laptop, the power/heat/noise savings is another huge advantage to me. I would say go for the largest size SSD you can afford from a reputable brand and you will be happy!
Click to expand...

Thank you for the insight. Right now my price range is in the $200 range. I don't know much about SSDs but someone above posted to go for the Samsung 840 pro rather than the regular. I don't know much about hard drive specs but if it would make a dramatic difference than I'll go for it.

edit: just did a side by side comparison and it seems that the major difference is sequential write speed almost doubled but i'm capped at 300MB/s unfortunately.
 
Boxerz said:
Thank you for the insight. Right now my price range is in the $200 range. I don't know much about SSDs but someone above posted to go for the Samsung 840 pro rather than the regular. I don't know much about hard drive specs but if it would make a dramatic difference than I'll go for it.
Click to expand...

Not so much of a dramatic performance difference outside of synthetic benchmarks between the two Samsung models, but the components used inside.
 
Boxerz said:
Thank you for the insight. Right now my price range is in the $200 range. I don't know much about SSDs but someone above posted to go for the Samsung 840 pro rather than the regular. I don't know much about hard drive specs but if it would make a dramatic difference than I'll go for it.
Click to expand...

In terms of quality of the drive controller & firmware (as in reliability of your data during its life), no difference. The Pro has somewhat higher performance; the highest performance of any SSD currently out there (the non-Pro has "average" performance). It also has a longer warranty (5 years vs 3). If price is no object, its the #1 choice.

But you also won't find a 256GB (or larger) 840 Pro under $200 (from a reliable shop) unless you catch a very lucky bargain currently.

In terms of regularly-under-$200 drives 256 GB or larger, the 840 non-Pro and Crucial M4 are similar in performance, reliability & warranty.
 
^ don't forget about the Plextor M5P...very good performance and a 5 year warranty, as well. Typically it's regular price is significantly less than the 840 Pro, when the Samsung isn't on sale.
 
Price is a factor. The plextor and 840 pro are out of my price range. Toms hardware thread on these ssds seem to talk about regular 840 reliability unproven. I am leaning towards the m4which is 15$ more. I have about 6hours to decide. I'll need an internal 2.5 mount? I'm looking at the silverstone mount. I'm posting from my phone now -_-
Edit- I can still read from work but can't login from it. Err.. to fix my post. 840 has higher iops read and write than the m4. I'm assuming noticeably this won't make a difference unless benchMark s?
 
Last edited:
If you are going with the M4 (great drives BTW...I have 2), you can get a sku with the adapter included.
 
SKU is the package product number.

ex.
CT128M4SSD2BAA is a Crucial M4 128gb with bracket
CT128M4SSD2 is a Crucial M4 128gb with out bracket


CT256M4SSD2BAA is a Crucial M4 256gb with bracket
CT256M4SSD2 is a Crucial M4 256gb with out bracket
 
As bobstone said, it's an item identifier. Stands for Stock Keeping Unit, which helps businesses order the appropriate version of a particular product, track inventory levels, and record sales data. Helps the consumer by signifying which particular version to order so you can get the correct one.
 
Haha.. I knew SKU in that sense. I thought you meant something in ssd terms I was unaware of but now I see why the same item on Amazon is priced differently
 
Boxerz said:
Price is a factor. The plextor and 840 pro are out of my price range. Toms hardware thread on these ssds seem to talk about regular 840 reliability unproven. I am leaning towards the m4which is 15$ more. I have about 6hours to decide. I'll need an internal 2.5 mount? I'm looking at the silverstone mount. I'm posting from my phone now -_-
Edit- I can still read from work but can't login from it. Err.. to fix my post. 840 has higher iops read and write than the m4. I'm assuming noticeably this won't make a difference unless benchMark s?
Click to expand...

Tom's Hardware is no longer considered a reliable review site by most currently. For a better idea, check out [H]ardOCP's review (won its Gold award).

The questions some bring up about the regular 840 is because it has been released recently and uses a new type of NAND memory never before used in a SSD. That's where the "unproven" thoughts come from. Solely to allow a reduction in drive price, while retaining performance/reliability. Don't think that Samsung hasn't done any accelerated drive life/performance testing. I personally wouldn't have concerns at all; other manufacturers are planning drives with its memory type later this year to improve drive pricing.

The M4 is older (circa 2011) and uses a memory type most others use. In exchange for somewhat lower performance (near the bottom of current SSD drives).
 
The M4 is older (circa 2011) and uses a memory type most others use. In exchange for somewhat lower performance (near the bottom of current SSD drives).
Click to expand...

Yes, but still at a level of performance that couldn't be differentiated from other top tier SSDs in daily typical use. :)
 
Boxerz said:
Could anyone post their stats with a SSD?
Click to expand...

Sure, I'll play. This is from my nearly 3yo Crucial C300 128Gb drive. Best money I've ever spent.

Partition is nearly full, I've never done any optimization to the drive or anything. System boots Win7 Pro or Mint faster than the BIOS posts.

ssd-cm2_zps8c86fa0a.png
 
DejaWiz said:
1. Um, OK. So please explain to me: Why is it that many forum members here for multiple years now have been starting threads asking about increasing overall system performance of their older, as examples, S939 and S478 systems on a strict budget, and the SSD is the number one item both recommended and then installed? Then like clockwork the OP comes back and says they are just amazed at how much faster EVERYTHING is on their exact same system with just the SSD installed.

And also please explain this to me: Whi is it that in every single desktop or laptop, and I mean every single one, that I've upgraded the boot drive with an SSD, the entire system performs faster and myself or whomever I do the upgrade for absolutely notices the difference?

2. In practice, have you ever replaced every single spindle HDD in your server with an SSD? I'm guessing the answer is no.

3. Absolutely false. Even the fastest SATA3 spindle hard drive will be hard-pressed to saturate a SATA1 bus. Any newer performance based SSD will just about fully saturate whatever SATA bus its spec'd at, which means it will saturate an earlier SATA revision port if plugged in to one.

4. Serious question for you: Are you trolling this thread? :confused:
Click to expand...

1) I guess most of sales is hype. And most of purchasing is believing the hype.

I built my wife a nice new computer for her office work. Lots of CPU processing, lots of file access. Faster processor, more memory, SATAIII ports up from SATAII, Windows 7 up from XP. Even with a SSD, 840 pro, it was no faster (perception) than her previous computer. Changed the CPU from an I3 to an I7 and she noticed the difference. (Some computations that took 20 seconds took less than 10.

She now complained the server was now slow. Changed from a WD Black for both the OS and data to a SSD for the OS - M4 and SSD for data - M4. It was no faster. Benchmarked about the same. (One day I may replace the I3 with an I7 and I think that will help. But there is no rush.

2) In the 2 examples above I replaced all the HDs with SSDs and there was no improvement. I also have a HTPC. I replaced the OS drive with a SSD and the HD I do recoding on with a SSD. That is an improvement. On the otherhand ripping DVDs is no faster.

3) I have given 2 examples that show your claim is in error.

4) Reality - no trolls is different that fantasy - trolls. You have made a claim that SSDs always result in improvements. I have given you 2 examples where they did not. That shows your statement is false. I will point out that others have found situations where SSDs do not improve performance. A search of this forum should provide you with ample proof that your statements are false. Give up your fantasy.
 
Sticky: If your question ever is "I have a computer with [something that isn't an SSD], would an SSD be better/worth it?" The answer is always Yes.

But I have Windows XP... still a Yes

But I have SATA I... still a Yes

But I don't have TRIM... still a Yes

But my CPU is 8 years old... still a Yes

But I can only afford [size smaller than everything you have]... still a Yes, just use a spinning HDD to store the larger media files that are read sequentially anyway.

The answer is always, always Yes! Even if you can't take advantage of that SATA III speed, it is still faster than whatever is in your computer right now.
 
GeorgeHR said:
1) I guess most of sales is hype. And most of purchasing is believing the hype.

I built my wife a nice new computer for her office work. Lots of CPU processing, lots of file access. Faster processor, more memory, SATAIII ports up from SATAII, Windows 7 up from XP. Even with a SSD, 840 pro, it was no faster (perception) than her previous computer. Changed the CPU from an I3 to an I7 and she noticed the difference. (Some computations that took 20 seconds took less than 10.

She now complained the server was now slow. Changed from a WD Black for both the OS and data to a SSD for the OS - M4 and SSD for data - M4. It was no faster. Benchmarked about the same. (One day I may replace the I3 with an I7 and I think that will help. But there is no rush.

2) In the 2 examples above I replaced all the HDs with SSDs and there was no improvement. I also have a HTPC. I replaced the OS drive with a SSD and the HD I do recoding on with a SSD. That is an improvement. On the otherhand ripping DVDs is no faster.

3) I have given 2 examples that show your claim is in error.

4) Reality - no trolls is different that fantasy - trolls. You have made a claim that SSDs always result in improvements. I have given you 2 examples where they did not. That shows your statement is false. I will point out that others have found situations where SSDs do not improve performance. A search of this forum should provide you with ample proof that your statements are false. Give up your fantasy.
Click to expand...

I suppose we're at a stalemate, then. Every reputable SSD review on the web proves that an SSD is exponentially faster than a spindle drive in every aspect. Every aspect. And I have my personal experiences to prove to me that everything you have stated about an SSD being no faster than a spindle drive is absolutely false. I've replaced the spindle drive in numerous desktops and laptops with an SSD doing a 1:1 data clone (no fresh OS install), and the increase in overall system performance noticed by myself and everyone else I've done the replacements for have the following outcome every time: conclude unanimously that the SSD does make an astounding difference to increasing overall system performance by removing the bottleneck of the spindle drive's slow speed.

Alas, that is only mine and seemingly 99.9% of other users that have transitioned to an SSD. You have the absolute right to formulate your own conclusions from your own personal perceptions with all stated storage devices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top