TechSpot: Plextor M6 SSD Series - SATA, mSATA and M.2 Drives Tested

More than a decade has passed since Parallel ATA was made redundant by SATA. Originally designed to provide a maximum throughput of 16MB/s, PATA was eventually upgraded to 133MB/s, which was plenty for a while. But as 2003 desktops were pumping 3GB/s of bandwidth between their system memory and processor, while graphics cards were exceeding 30GB/s, it became clear that hard drives were the weakest link of modern computers.

Unable to max the original SATA interface, conventional hard drives had little hope of tapping SATA 2.0's 300MB/s, much less SATA 3.0's 600MB/s, yet those speeds have already grown inadequate for the quickest flash drives. This brings us to SATA 3.2 and its ample 16Gb/s bandwidth, which is offered via SATA Express and SATA M.2 on Intel's new 9-series chipsets.

Following up on its M1 and M2 series, Plextor's new M6 range comes in the form of a regular 2.5" SATA drive (M6S), and mSATA drive (M6M) and a PCI Express/M.2 version (M6e). Today we're putting all three to the test.

Read: Plextor M6 SSD Series - SATA, mSATA and M.2 Drives Tested
This article is brought to you in partnership with TechSpot

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

TrueCrypt is saying it's insecure, recommends using BitLocker

Next Story

Apple's Eddy Cue: We've got the best product pipeline in 25 years

10 Comments

Todays SATA's, if used properly, also last longer. HDD are still on the market just because of their price/capacity report, wich is by far still the best.

_Heavens said,
HDDs are the best, more capacity, and last longer

Have you ever used an SSD before? While yes they have more capacity and better price/GB ratio's, technically an SSD should out last one. The biggest issues SSD's have had came down to the earlier generations of them with performance regressions because of bad firmwares or terrible wear leveling.

I understand where you are coming from but as the article points out, HDD's are clearly the bottleneck when it comes to standard system performance.

I've got 2x10,000 Raptors that don't even come close to the random read/write speeds of an SSD which is what make operating systems far more responsive.

Also, you cannot say they are too expensive as prices over the past 12 months have crashed quite handsomely, for example, the Crucial M500 240GB SSD is ~£85 on ebuyer.com: http://www.ebuyer.com/497430-c...40gb-m500-ssd-ct240m500ssd1

Kingston has an 480GB SSD for £160 and so on. They are not the fastest drives on the planet but they would certainly do for the average person.

It depends for what they are used for. SSD's are the best solution to store your OS and programs. HDD's are best to store media libraries and other mostly static files. I wouldn't build a computer today that wasn't configured with an SSD as boot drive.

I've had some disappointing luck with SSDs. I've purchased 9 over the past four years- some for myself and some as gifts for family- and four of those have gone bad and required warranty claims. I've tried Mushkin, Kingston, OCZ, and recently Intel. I can't go back to using a plain spinning disk for my system drives, but so far I am disappointed with SSD quality.

Skwerl said,
I've had some disappointing luck with SSDs. I've purchased 9 over the past four years- some for myself and some as gifts for family- and four of those have gone bad and required warranty claims. I've tried Mushkin, Kingston, OCZ, and recently Intel. I can't go back to using a plain spinning disk for my system drives, but so far I am disappointed with SSD quality.

Safe bets for SSD's are Intel and Samsung.

May get me some ssd's or try an M.2 soon. Just making up a new system, with the H97M-E I ordered today, which has a M.2 socket on it. And chuck it into something like a Fractal design Node 804 case. Or one of these MATX cube cases. Nice and small.

"More than a decade has passed since Parallel ATA was made redundant by SATA."

I think the word you're looking for is "obsolete", not "redundant".

Commenting is disabled on this article.