Is SATA III 6GB/s not worth it for 99% of people?

D

Daal

From what I've read not just most SSDs don't reach 600Mbs but also most of the work of the OS and programs are done in small and medium files which don't reach those kinds of speeds. Sata II seem to be enough for the vast majority of people unless they need to move huge files on a daily basis (even then plugging the SSD on a USB 3.0 port will probably give a boost over Sata II that is probably enough)

Agree?Disagree?
 
Sata 3 comes into play for high-performance apps like HD video editing but use striped raid arrays for sustained high speeds.
 
Quote from Daal:

From what I've read not just most SSDs don't reach 600Mbs but also most of the work of the OS and programs are done in small and medium files which don't reach those kinds of speeds. Sata II seem to be enough for the vast majority of people unless they need to move huge files on a daily basis (even then plugging the SSD on a USB 3.0 port will probably give a boost over Sata II that is probably enough)

Agree?Disagree?
More...

Dissagree on the first part - most SSD totally overutlize a SATA 3 these days and those who do not mostly STILL GO ABOVE SATA 2.

For the rest - dude, seirously, ESPECIALLY small files shine with an SSD. Reading a small file is more than reading the file - it is a lot ofchecks and updates (read timestamp etc.). Developing / compilation are known problem areas (tons of small file IO - a ral progeam easily has 1000-2000 files to open) and a SSD really kills a hard disc there.

Third, even normal use - it is a hugh difference. You have to see it to believe it.

BUt what the heck do you even talk about - it is hard to get a not SATA 3 capable motherboard on a decent computer these days.
 
Quote from NetTecture:

Dissagree on the first part - most SSD totally overutlize a SATA 3 these days and those who do not mostly STILL GO ABOVE SATA 2.

For the rest - dude, seirously, ESPECIALLY small files shine with an SSD. Reading a small file is more than reading the file - it is a lot ofchecks and updates (read timestamp etc.). Developing / compilation are known problem areas (tons of small file IO - a ral progeam easily has 1000-2000 files to open) and a SSD really kills a hard disc there.

Third, even normal use - it is a hugh difference. You have to see it to believe it.

BUt what the heck do you even talk about - it is hard to get a not SATA 3 capable motherboard on a decent computer these days.
More...

Most laptops dont have sata 3(even in the US) and at least in my country most desktops don't have it either as SSDs are super expensive
 
I dont know whree you live - but I would not call SSD super expensive. I am regularly adding them these days because they are CHEAP. Cheaper than hard discs.

The trick is - you do not buy "size", but IOPS. Hard discs for size, then a SSD or two as IO cache.

January I start replacing all my Raid Controllers with Adaptec 7805Q models which can use SSD as transparent read or write cache - then will add 2 512gb Samsung Pro for every server. That is a lot cheaper than getting an external disc cage and possibly 20 or 30 discs to get the IO budget. That is even worse when you look at laptops - laptop hard discs are notoriously damn slow, as they have to be robust (no 10k or 15k discs). Plus HD use a LOT more power - important on laptops. More performance, shock resistance, less power use - your "super expensive" turns into a great deal fast. By end of January I wont have a single machine left with internal hard discs that are not SSD cached. Obviously - workstations often wont have anything internalyl at all but boot from one of the servers via network.

But seriously, you really have to get over the "high price" point. SSD are 100 times as fast as hard discs - actually more. Going from 200 or so IOPS of a faster SATA discs - with around 300 for a Velociraptor - to more than 50.000 IOPS (some are quoted as high as 100.000) is what makes them good deals. You just do not put them in for bulk storage. Use them to get boosts. Use them as cache. Use them to get a BIG BANG then put the bulk onto slow hard discs.

And never ever talk about "performance" in the same chapter or post as you talk about laptops. Laptops are compromises. Always. Whining about the price for a fast laptop solution is ridiculous. The price is - on a performance laptop - the last thing someone thinks of, as this is the ONLY way to make a performance laptop. Want to see the extreme? Check out the AlienWare laptops. Total power - but hey, the price has to give.
 
Dude, there is no disagreement that SSDs rock, I'm simply saying that for most people 90% of the jump in performance will come within the SATA 2 capabilities and a SATA 3 will be a waste. This might change in a few years but right now I just can't see how this is not right. It's not often that one will be reading 1 huge file, for people that do that, sure get a SATA 3, for others SATA 2 will be enough
 
Quote from Daal:

From what I've read not just most SSDs don't reach 600Mbs but also most of the work of the OS and programs are done in small and medium files which don't reach those kinds of speeds. Sata II seem to be enough for the vast majority of people unless they need to move huge files on a daily basis (even then plugging the SSD on a USB 3.0 port will probably give a boost over Sata II that is probably enough)
More...
Just as a point of reference

SATA 2 = 3 Gbit/s - 300 MB/s
SATA 3 = 6 Gbit/s - 600 MB/s

Your first sentence referring to 600Mbs is not correct, its 600MB/s (Bytes not Bits)

Second the issue isn't whether an SSD can hit 600MB/s, its whether it can exceed 300MB/s - at that point the interface is the bottleneck so moving up to SATA 3 is beneficial. Many current SSD's can easily exceed 300MB/s.

As previously pointed out, SATA 3 support is not bleeding edge anymore on either hosts or drives so the cost difference should not be that much. Whether it is worth it is a personal decision.

Some light reading for you : "Does Your Fast SSD Really Need SATA 6Gb/s? " http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sata-6gbps-performance-sata-3gbps,3110.html
 
Quote from GTS:

Just as a point of reference

SATA 2 = 3 Gbit/s - 300 MB/s
SATA 3 = 6 Gbit/s - 600 MB/s

Your first sentence referring to 600Mbs is not correct, its 600MB/s (Bytes not Bits)

Second the issue isn't whether an SSD can hit 600MB/s, its whether it can exceed 300MB/s - at that point the interface is the bottleneck so moving up to SATA 3 is beneficial. Many current SSD's can easily exceed 300MB/s.

As previously pointed out, SATA 3 support is not bleeding edge anymore on either hosts or drives so the cost difference should not be that much. Whether it is worth it is a personal decision.

Some light reading for you : "Does Your Fast SSD Really Need SATA 6Gb/s? " http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sata-6gbps-performance-sata-3gbps,3110.html
More...

This article says things alone the lines that I'm saying. The biggest bang for the buck comes from having an SSD with SATA 2, SATA 3 improvements are modest
4KB random writes are almost the same whether you use SATA 2 or 3 (except for OCZ, which is a POS brand anyway) and I believe this is the biggest factor in performance in a day to day basis. Boot time also didn't materially change and the article author even said don't expect a jump there
There is a jump in compressed files read and write but I don't think that is a big deal for most people
There is also a nice jump in the large file processing but again, its not something that people use frequently
Someone with SATA 2 might be able to get these improvements plugging the SSD in the USB 3.0 anyway (at least part of the improvement)

This might not matter in the US but in Brazil SATA 3 brands are sold at a quite a premium and SATA 3 in laptops are pretty much inexistent
 
Quote from Daal:

This article says things alone the lines that I'm saying. The biggest bang for the buck comes from having an SSD with SATA 2, SATA 3 improvements are modest
4KB random writes are almost the same whether you use SATA 2 or 3 (except for OCZ, which is a POS brand anyway) and I believe this is the biggest factor in performance in a day to day basis. Boot time also didn't materially change and the article author even said don't expect a jump there
There is a jump in compressed files read and write but I don't think that is a big deal for most people
There is also a nice jump in the large file processing but again, its not something that people use frequently
Someone with SATA 2 might be able to get these improvements plugging the SSD in the USB 3.0 anyway (at least part of the improvement)

This might not matter in the US but in Brazil SATA 3 brands are sold at a quite a premium and SATA 3 in laptops are pretty much inexistent
More...
Agreed - the thrust of the article is that if you don't have an SSD at all then getting an SSD will give you a big performance boost so if SATA 2 is all you can afford then go for it.

The boost from SATA 2 to SATA 3 is incremental and whether you will notice the difference depends a lot on how you use it.

So if you have a SATA 2 SSD already its probably not worth it to upgrade only for SATA 3 ... however if you are planning a new SSD purchase it may be worth going SATA 3 from the beginning to future-proof even if you don't have a SATA 3 interface on your host yet.

Of course the way SSD prices keep failing/capacities keep increasing it seems like any SSD purchase will be obsolete in a couple of years so maybe there is no point in buying for the future...I'm already replacing my smaller SSD's bought just 2 years ago with larger capacity ones because of the price drops (and performance gains)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top