cosrocket Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 I have a several year old desktop PC with SATA II interface in which I installed a Samsung 850 EVO SSD. It's running well, but I am wondering specifically to the difference between SATA II and SATA III if there would be a small or large difference in performance with the Samsung SSD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo1911 Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Large difference. On SATA2, your 850 Evo will max out between 250-300 Mbps sequential read and write speeds. On SATA3, your 850 Evo will max out between 500-520 Mbps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n_K Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 I've got a SATA II PC with a OCZ Vertex II and a SATA III PC with Sandisk Plus SSD so there's more at play than just the SATA version here, but do I notice a difference? Yes. How big is the difference? Not as big as the difference between mechanical HDD and SSD but there is big difference when writing/reading to the SSD to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Warwagon MVC Posted August 9, 2015 MVC Share Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) Correct, sata 2 will obviously will be slower than Sata 3 but going with an SSD from an HDD is still well worth it. I have a lot of machines in my house none of them run HDD's as boot drives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shockz Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) Just put an SSD into a HP DV6000 w/ 1GB of RAM and a Centrino Duo 2, from around 2007. It's more than capable of getting a few more years out of it. Boots in less than 30 seconds and doens't really lag around for basic operations. Perfect for word processing, e-mail/internet and even netflix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZakO Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Here's my Samsung 840 on SATA2 vs SATA3 for comparison. SATA2 / SATA3: Benchmarks show the difference is quite large, it would be even bigger for an 850 because it doesn't have the 250MB/s sequential write limit the 840 has. In real world use I don't notice a whole lot of difference, obviously it depends on your usage though. Either way it's certainly nothing compared to going from HDD -> SDD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaverickVA Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Truth is neither will reach the max specified speeds. Same thing applies to mechanical IDE and SATA HDD's as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Warwagon MVC Posted August 9, 2015 MVC Share Posted August 9, 2015 Large file transfers will be faster, sure. But over all launch of applications and such ..not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n_K Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Truth is neither will reach the max specified speeds. Same thing applies to mechanical IDE and SATA HDD's as well. That's because of the implementation, not because of the SSD, and is the same for any protocol. The protocol has overhead and if you use more than one device there is contention, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason S. Global Moderator Posted August 12, 2015 Global Moderator Share Posted August 12, 2015 the vast majority of data I/O on an SSD is the small 4k files. How often is anyone transferring large, sequential files? SATA2 will never saturate a large set of 4k files b/c all SATA SSDs have 4k transfer rates of <100MB/s. that's not even close to saturating the protocol. point is, in the 'real world' you probably wont noticed much of a difference b/w the 2 protocols. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts