• 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.

So...no need for SATA 3 (6 GB/sec) right now, right?

B

bovinda

Senior member
...because I'm looking at a new build, and trying to decide if it's a feature I need. I will be getting one of the new SSDs, but it sounds like those cap out before 3 GB/sec anyway (like 250 MB/sec, according to Anand); so at this point, there's no need for SATA 3, right?

I mean, if I decide to upgrade the HD to a newer SSD in like a year that would have a higher thoroughput than 3 GB/sec, then maybe it would matter. But if not, it wouldn't matter? I mean, a future firmware upgrade to Intel's G2 wouldn't somehow magically make it able to exceed SATA 2, yeah?

...'cuz mobos with SATA 3 are far and few inbetween at the moment, and it sounds like the Marvell controller (heh, always makes me think comic books) is a few generations from perfect anyway...it seems like SATA 3 might be a silly thing to future-proof based on.

Correct me if I'm wrong?
 
I don't think the hardware of traditional hardrives are up to SATA/1.5 speeds but I don't know about SSDs.
I suspect your computer will be obsolete by the time SATA/6 is mainstream.

So I wouldn't spend the money now.
 
Well even the current SSDs could profit from 6gb SATA for their sequential read speads as these are already limited by the current standard (250mb/s is way less than the theoretical maximum of SATA2, but don't forget all the overhead and stuff)

But imho 50mb/s more or less sequential read is rather uninteresting for a <= 160GB SSD and till HDDs saturate SATA3 you'll already have bought another mainboard 😉
 
20-channel SSDs are easily capable of 500+MB/s. I wouldn't say 250MB/s is "way less" when the bottleneck is 300MB/s - some overhead.
 
It's nice for SSDs, & benchmarking.

Those two aside, you won't be seeing huge benefits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top