• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is sata 3 worth it?

FearfulSPARTAN

FearfulSPARTAN

Member
Hi I currently have a asrock H61m-dgs with a core I3 and am purchasing an SSD that supports sata 3. I plan on upgrading my CPU in about a year and have 3 options. I could stick with this board for awhile and buy a quad ivy bridge next year, buy a new lga 1155 board this year with sata 3 and buy an I5 next year, or I can buy a haswell board and CPU next year. Just wondering if sata 3 is worth it because I'm basing my purchase around it. I don't care about USB 3.0 and am not sure the jump to haswell performance wise is worth a brand new board. Anyone's opinion is appreciated
 
You could always add SATA 6Gbps or USB 3.0 if you have one or two spare PCIE slots. I picked up a USB 3.0 controller really cheaply a few months ago.
 
no in typical everyday usage. yes in benchmark and yes in professional applications (like heavy video editing where time is money - the you definitely want sata6 with raid 0).

so all depends on how u plan to use it.
 
mikeymikec said:
You could always add SATA 6Gbps or USB 3.0 if you have one or two spare PCIE slots. I picked up a USB 3.0 controller really cheaply a few months ago.
Click to expand...


some cheap PCIE sata III cards only use (poorly) PCIE 1x 1.0 speed, so in reality it can be even slower.
 
6Gbs (gigabit) = 6000/8 = 750MBs (Megabyte) max less overhead, and taking 8b/10b encoding into account, the maximum uncoded transfer rate is 4.8 Gbit/s (600 MB/s)
3Gbs (gigabit) = 3000/8 = 375MBs (Megabyte) theoretical max less overhead, and taking 8b/10b encoding into account, the maximum uncoded transfer rate is 2.4 Gbit/s (300 MB/s)
Since most current SSD today are 500-550MB/s read write, you have no choice - you have to run 6G
The current most popular thing to do is RAID0 2 SSD (256GB or bigger) on Intel 6G (1100/1000 read write) with O/S and frequently used apps, and RAID0 some 2-4TB Data HDD's with Intel 3G ports for ~300 MB/s on them

Haswell will have 6 Intel SATA6G ports and 2/4/6 third party 6G controller ports

Edited for posting numbers without being fully awake - heh
 
Last edited:
You don't need SATA 6Gb/s ports with a SSD if you're not too particular about reaching its maximum speed. You'd be able to reap the speed and responsiveness benefits of a SSD even with a SATA 3Gb/s.

Either that or you could swap it out for the slightly pricier, ASRock H61M/U3S3 which comes with USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s ports. As the H61 chipset does not natively support SATA 6Gb/s, it will bypass to a 3rd party chipset.
 
bankster55 said:
6Gbs (gigabit) = 6000/8 = 750GBs (gigabyte) max less overhead
3Gbs (gigabit) = 3000/8 = 375GBs (gigabyte) max less overhead
Since most current SSD today are 500-550GB/s read write, you have no choice - you have to run 6G
The current most popular thing to do is RAID0 2 SSD (256GB or bigger) on Intel 6G (1100/1000 read write) with O/S and frequently used apps, and RAID0 some 2-4TB Data HDD's with Intel 3G ports for ~300 GB/s on them

Haswell will have 6 Intel SATA6G ports and 2/4/6 third party 6G controller ports
Click to expand...

Your numbers are abit off. SATA6 is 600MB/sec, SATA2 is 300MB/sec. But thats essentially just a theroretical max. Also SSDs dont do 500-550GB/sec. They do 500-550MB/sec.

And the difference between 275MB/sec and 550MB/sec is absolutely minimal. The key point again on why SSDs are so fast, is because of the seektime. When a HD raptor does 250-350KB/sec. The SSD does 50-100MB/sec in random I/O.

And remember the chipset is still limited by the DMI/A-Link Express speed.
 
Depends on application. If you have a small drive, then seek performance is likely what you're after and SATA 3 will make minimal impact. If you have a larger drive, you'd likely be using it for scratch space (video, photoshop files), or using it for game loads -- both of which benefit significantly from higher sequential speed. Need to know what drive you are getting, and what applications you plan to use with it.
 
I just purchased an Samsung 840 120gb SSD, I plan to use it for the os, a few apps and a few games until I buy a bigger SSD or HDD later this year
 
On a side note how long do you guys think my board will last me, because if I do upgrade I don't plan to upgrade my CPU for another 3-4 years
 
bankster55 said:
No, actually the theoretical max is 750MB/s and 375MB/s
6Gb obviously has no mathematical correlation to 600MB
And in actual use with 8b/10b encoding its then becomes 600/300MB/s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA

I have corrected my sloppy post
Click to expand...

sata 2 does 150mbps mines do. sata 3 6gbps.. not mbps ,,,,,,

lol your lucky if you get 500mbps , whats this 720mbps your saying. Well ya duh, if you run RAID 0 youll get 1000mbps ...... whats 720mbps Im asking lol ?
 
heres what I get

M4.jpg
 
I run multiple virtual machines off of sata3 on my desktop and sata2 on my laptop drive. I can not see or feel any difference and I notice any sort of lag. The benchmarks are about all I notice. No need for upgrade yet.
 
mikeymikec said:
You could always add SATA 6Gbps or USB 3.0 if you have one or two spare PCIE slots. I picked up a USB 3.0 controller really cheaply a few months ago.
Click to expand...

Bad idea about the sata3 card - especially for booting. It's not worth the hassle and 3rd party controllers aren't as fast as on board intel ones, especially cheap ones.

USB 3.0 add-in cards on the other hand are very nice. I use one in an older system too, because I find USB 3.0 enclosures make my external drives WAY faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top