which chipset for SATA III card w/Boot capability to replace failing motherboard SATA ports

X

x509

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
2,630
I need to get a 4 (or 6) port add-on SATA III card which allows me to boot up on an Intel motherboard. Which boards or chipsets are best?

I have this older system where at least 3 of the 6 SATA ports are failing, according to the error rate statistics in HD Sentinel, which I just installed. Those error rates probably explain why Windows goes off into the weeds every so often. I want to get a replacement for the SATA ports to keep this old system running a bit longer.

x509
 
This depends more on the UEFI / BIOS, but really, a cheap four-port HBA would work.

This simple one I've used for my NAS.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
IdiotInCharge said:
This depends more on the UEFI / BIOS, but really, a cheap four-port HBA would work.

This simple one I've used for my NAS.
Click to expand...
Thanks. My one big concern was that I could boot Windows off a drive attached to this HBA and lots of reviews that they can do that. (y)
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
x509 said:
Thanks. My one big concern was that I could boot Windows off a drive attached to this HBA and lots of reviews that they can do that. (y)
Click to expand...

Without providing too much undo hope, I can at least report that on my Z170 board, drives attached to the above HBA are visible in the UEFI and selectable for boot. I have ten drives installed in addition to the main boot drive, and it's actually a bit of a hassle to work through them all in a clunky UEFI page.
 
If you're using any sata drives I recommend at least a pcie 3.0 1x card or pcie 2.0 2x card (the PCIe 2.0 1x slot bandwidth is only about 500MB/s total)
 
Spartacus09 said:
If you're using any sata drives I recommend at least a pcie 3.0 1x card or pcie 2.0 2x card (the PCIe 2.0 1x slot bandwidth is only about 500MB/s total)
Click to expand...

It's not a bad idea, but if no more than two drives are being accessed at any one time (and they're spinners), then it's not that big of a deal. It's a bigger deal if you're filling all four ports and expecting to push simultaneous data across them, of course.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
It's not a bad idea, but if no more than two drives are being accessed at any one time (and they're spinners), then it's not that big of a deal. It's a bigger deal if you're filling all four ports and expecting to push simultaneous data across them, of course.
Click to expand...
Agreed, the 2x card is like a 4$ difference so better to have more bandwidth than you need :shrug:
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
IdiotInCharge said:
It's not a bad idea, but if no more than two drives are being accessed at any one time (and they're spinners), then it's not that big of a deal. It's a bigger deal if you're filling all four ports and expecting to push simultaneous data across them, of course.
Click to expand...
Which describes my situation, so I'm going to take @Spartucus09's advice. :happy:
 
Last edited:
x509 said:
Which describes my situation, so I'm going to take @Spartucus69's advice. :happy:
Click to expand...
Woo i got a number upgrade :p
But yeah search around theres <10$ difference between the 1x, 2x and 4x cards, just watch for the pcie 3.0 vs 2.0 variants thats what make the price jump up a bit - then of course make sure your slot is rated for the speed type
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top