Using an SSD on SATA300 v SATA600

mothermachine · 2 Dec 2010 at 10:00

Hi folks,

Would there be a significant difference in real-world speeds using an SSD on SATA300 instead of SATA600?

Say for example a C300 128GB.

Reason I ask is that I'm slowly coming round to the idea again of going down the SSD route for my OS drive but I don't have any spare SATA600 ports left (both being used by project drives).

My guess is that I'll still see a massive jump with an SSD in a SATA300 port from my current 7200rpm WD black?

Cheers,

ih8modem · 2 Dec 2010 at 10:05

mothermachine said:
Hi folks,

Would there be a significant difference in real-world speeds using an SSD on SATA300 instead of SATA600?

Say for example a C300 128GB.

Reason I ask is that I'm slowly coming round to the idea again of going down the SSD route for my OS drive but I don't have any spare SATA600 ports left (both being used by project drives).

My guess is that I'll still see a massive jump with an SSD in a SATA300 port from my current 7200rpm WD black?

Cheers,

I think they are close to making proper use of the increased SATA-iii bandwidth (the c300 being one of few that are SATA-iii enabled to date) but I still prefer the faster write speeds of the sandforce 1200 series of SSD (vertex 2e / Patriot Inferno). The C300 only gives you around 50MB/s more on read, but loses over 150MB/s on write speeds - if your 'real world' use involves a lot of reading only, then stretch for the c300 (a PCI-e 1x 2-port SATA-iii card is only around 20 quid, assuming you have spare 1x ports available).

And yes, performance will be markedly improved over the WD black - even on SATA-ii.

mothermachine · 2 Dec 2010 at 10:08

cheers

i've already owned one C300 and it died on me for no apparent reason, so staying away from that tbh. also their firmware releases are pretty shoddy to say the least!

i like the sound of the vertex 2e / patriot inferno. sounds worth a look.

thanks again

Mr.Gilbo · 5 Dec 2010 at 01:23

Depends

It's worth pointing out that "only" 50-60MB/s more read speed is around a 25% increase over the fastest you'll get on SATA300.

I get 355MB/s sustained read from mine on SATA600 which is why I bought it purely for OS and Games. It made sense for me to maximise my read potential for this purpose.

As pointed out above, if you're looking for a more general purpose SSD then sticking to SATA300 and going for a drive with a more balanced read/write throughput might be the better choice for you.

SpriteAlpha · 5 Dec 2010 at 01:28

Yeah, if you're getting a C300 128GB, you should use it on SATA600 if you have that option. It will be quicker, albeit the increase in speed from using that drive on SATA300 to SATA600 will be nowhere near as significant as going from your current WD black to an SSD.

mothermachine · 5 Dec 2010 at 17:29

Well I've gone for the OCZ Vertex 2e Bigfoot. My second jump into the SSD world and I'm rather nervous about it tbh, given my first experience with my C300 dying on me.

When I install it should I immediately enable AHCI in BIOS or install win7 first? Oh, and will I need to deactivate my current win7 retail install before I can re-install on the new SSD?

Cheers!

psyside · 6 Dec 2010 at 07:32

Sorry but actually the C300 works better on SATA II, mostly cause of gr8 4K performance.

The sequential performance not so important for an SSD, and the only boost you get from SATA III is actually that segment.

And here is a proof

Intel ICH10 SATA II

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5417/singleich10rraidnonmemb.jpg

Marvel SATA III

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/5996/marvellsinglec300l.jpg

Just look at those insane 4K performance ICH10/R (SATA II) offer, i take that over 80mb/s + sequential reads anyday.

Final AS-SSD score,

SATA II ICH10 = 589

SATA III Marvel = 391

mothermachine · 6 Dec 2010 at 07:34

Aye but I'm not going to buy a C300 ever again after my experiences with it. Just not worth it.

psyside · 6 Dec 2010 at 08:05

Why what happend? my is coming in few days, curios to know some more about your experience?

C300 128GB/256GB are the best SSD's atm on the market.

mothermachine · 6 Dec 2010 at 08:29

psyside said:
Why what happend? my is coming in few days, curios to know some more about your experience?

C300 128GB/256GB are the best SSD's atm on the market.

well i had no end of issues with the fact that it was on the original firmware version, which had major issues with TRIM etc. then there was the whole fiasco of crucial screwing up the next FW version which bricked loads of people's drives and caused me serious issues with my mobo. And then it died on me for no reason at all. None that I can find anyway.

The only good thing I have to say about Crucial is that their RMA process is amazingly quick.

I'm sure your experience won't be anything like that, given that they're now on a much more advanced FW version and most of the issues seem to have been ironed out but it was enough to put me off.

lukext · 6 Dec 2010 at 09:16

The issues have been fixed with newer firmware. I have not had a single issue with my drive. Bad luck on you part I gues about it dying.