Are SSDs effective when using SATA II ?

[27MaD]

So after i ordered the Kingstone A400 120GB i noticed that my motherboard has SATA II not SATA III , would this cause a huge bottleneck or what ?

 

[Deleted member 24505]

So after i ordered the Kingstone A400 120GB i noticed that my motherboard has SATA II not SATA III , would this cause a huge bottleneck or what ?

Probably not, will still be faster than a sata II HDD

 

[natr0n]

WIll max out the sata spec for sure. Youll get about 225-250 megabyte a second.

 

[dirtyferret]

See review in the link

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sata-6gbps-performance-sata-3gbps,3110-7.html

 

[FordGT90Concept]

You'll only see a difference in sequential performance (moving big files).

I'd be more concerned about incompatibility. Older motherboards, especially with OS installed it, SSD can cause problems (BSOD, outright drive failure, loss of data, etc.). I don't have any SSDs that aren't used as OS drives so I don't know if the problems extend to storage drive.

 

[Deeveo]

So after i ordered the Kingstone A400 120GB i noticed that my motherboard has SATA II not SATA III , would this cause a huge bottleneck or what ?

Biggest difference for daily use from moving from hdd to ssd is file acces time, so you will get most of the benefits of ssd even on SATA II interface.

 

[27MaD]

You'll only see a difference in sequential performance (moving big files).

I'd be more concerned about incompatibility. Older motherboards, especially with OS installed it, SSD can cause problems (BSOD, outright drive failure, loss of data, etc.). I don't have any SSDs that aren't used as OS drives so I don't know if the problems extend to storage drive.

It's an Asus H61M-E which i doubt is old for an SSD , i'm running the last BIOS version so i think everything should be ok , i hope.

See review in the link

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sata-6gbps-performance-sata-3gbps,3110-7.html

The difference is like nothing ?!

 

[Deeveo]

It's an Asus H61M-E which i doubt is old for an SSD , i'm running the last BIOS version so i think everything should be ok , i hope.

I have had a Asus H61 (can't remember the exact model) board running on a Samsung 840 SSD with Linux for years, and it hasn't had any problems yet. So you should be fine =)

 

[agent_x007]

You can't see the difference between SATA2 and SATA3 unless you have :
1) Source drive(s) capable of 300MB/s+ read speed
2) Destination drive(s) that can write files with 300MB/s+ speed.
Windows 7 and later shouldn't have any issues with SSDs (BSODs), regardless of motherboard used.

Other than that SATA2 = SATA3 (assuming controller is any good of course [crappy SATA3 is worse than good SATA2 one]).

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It's an Asus H61M-E which i doubt is old for an SSD , i'm running the last BIOS version so i think everything should be ok , i hope.

I saw the problems on X58 (i7 920, random BSoDs) and I think Z68 (i7 2600, killed Samsung and Kingston SSDs). Sadly, you're in the same boat as those systems that struggled with them. BIOS updates didn't seem to impact it.

 

[dirtyferret]

It's an Asus H61M-E which i doubt is old for an SSD , i'm running the last BIOS version so i think everything should be ok , i hope.


The difference is like nothing ?!

Depends on the specific job but for most real world scenarios it's a minimal difference and a lot better then HDD performance.

 

[Mr.Scott]

I saw the problems on X58 (i7 920, random BSoDs) and I think Z68 (i7 2600, killed Samsung and Kingston SSDs). Sadly, you're in the same boat as those systems that struggled with them. BIOS updates didn't seem to impact it.

No problem on X58 or Z97 here. Both on SATA II SSD's and W7.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

No problem on X58 or Z97 here. Both on SATA II SSD's and W7.

Come to think of it, both systems were running Windows 10...

 

[lexluthermiester]

So after i ordered the Kingstone A400 120GB i noticed that my motherboard has SATA II not SATA III , would this cause a huge bottleneck or what ?

Short answer, not even close. SATA2 = 3 Gigabits per second = 375 MegaBytes per second. You're just not going to notice the difference in most cases. Enjoy your new drive mate. Cheers!

 

[Wavetrex]

It's more closer to 280-300 MB/s due to inefficiencies, rather than 375 MB/s, but it's still bloody fast.

I have an old Core2Quad (Maxes out as SATA 300) acting as a fileserver and has an SSD in it used as cache (with PrimoCache), the computer responds as fast as needed. My personal bottleneck is the 1gbps network, hope to upgrade soon to 2.5gbps as prices on switches drop.

Unless doing serious work that needs massive amounts of data to/from SSD, it will not be an issue whatsoever.

@op, enjoy your SSD speeds !

 

[trog100]

i have an ancient lenovo sata 2 laptop with a 1 T ssd in it.. its way better than the original spinning disk.. sata 2 aint as fast as sata 3 but its well worth doing..

trog

 

[FreedomEclipse]

My dad has one of my old SSDs in his laptop... Cant remember if its an old crucial, OCZ , Samsung, or Sandisk SSD but hes had the laptop from 2010 (i think its an i5 430) He's pretty happy with how responsive it is.

Youre still getting the responsiveness and fast boot times but it just wont be as fast as somebody using a more modern system. Still better than running a spinner.

 

[Gasaraki]

I would move away from 120GB SSDs. 250GB SSDs are better performing. However to answer your question, yes even if you run it at SATA2 it will be better than your HD due to random access times are so much faster.

 

[27MaD]

Very helpful experiences here.

 

[silentbogo]

So after i ordered the Kingstone A400 120GB i noticed that my motherboard has SATA II not SATA III , would this cause a huge bottleneck or what ?

In general - yes. There will be a huge bottleneck comparing to SATA-III. But, apart from synthetic benchmarks, you still get the benefits of having an SSD. I used to run my old SanDisk Ultra II in an LGA1366 system for several years, and while my R/W speeds never exceeded 230Mbit/s sequential, I still don't regret investing into an SSD.
Plus, SSDs are getting cheaper by day, so why not. The only problem I have with your choice, is that Kingston is garbage in general, and even more so on the low-end. Instead of A400 you should've went for a cheaper, faster, more reliable 3D TLC alternative, like Patriot Burst, PNY CS900-series, ADATA, or Goodram (decent stuff from Poland, may not be available in Saudi Arabia).
With that small of a price difference you may even stretch your budget by another $10 to get a 240GB SSD. I've finally used up my last batch of 120GB SSDs. From now on I'm not even gonna bother with anything lower than 240GB for customer upgrades, since the price difference is almost negligible.

 

[HD64G]

Was on Sata2 with the same data in my Sandisk SSD that I have now on Sata3, so I know well about this difference. It exists but just noticeable in daily use. Benchmarks show that as 30-40% depending on the file size (the continuous read figures where there is the biggest difference ~80% aren't for casual users). You will be fine, no worries.

 

[king of swag187]

Ouch, a A400.
But yes, should be significantly better, latency wise, than even a good HDD

 

[Deeveo]

In general - yes. There will be a huge bottleneck comparing to SATA-III. But, apart from synthetic benchmarks, you still get the benefits of having an SSD. I used to run my old SanDisk Ultra II in an LGA1366 system for several years, and while my R/W speeds never exceeded 230Mbit/s sequential, I still don't regret investing into an SSD.
Plus, SSDs are getting cheaper by day, so why not. The only problem I have with your choice, is that Kingston is garbage in general, and even more so on the low-end. Instead of A400 you should've went for a cheaper, faster, more reliable 3D TLC alternative, like Patriot Burst, PNY CS900-series, ADATA, or Goodram (decent stuff from Poland, may not be available in Saudi Arabia).
With that small of a price difference you may even stretch your budget by another $10 to get a 240GB SSD. I've finally used up my last batch of 120GB SSDs. From now on I'm not even gonna bother with anything lower than 240GB for customer upgrades, since the price difference is almost negligible.

I wouldn't call PNY CS900 reliable, you can get it dirt cheap though if you are not too concerned about possible drive failure.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I wouldn't call PNY CS900 reliable, you can get it dirt cheap though if you are not too concerned about possible drive failure.

What facts/evidence are you basing your opinion on?

 

[dirtyferret]

The CS900 has Micron RAM and a Phison controller. They have very good reviews on Amazon and Newegg so at least out of the gate they have good reliability and proven hardware.