Are SSDs effective when using SATA II ?

[PLAfiller]

I am always for SSD. My parents PC used to be 775 socket material. I put Sandisk SSD years ago and the system skyrocketed. Sata was 2 and still saw huuge improvement.

 

[silentbogo]

I wouldn't call PNY CS900 reliable

Still beats A400 and V300 when it comes to failure rates (by a large margin).

 

[agent_x007]

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.

1) You are using outdated CrystalDiskMark 2.2
2) You are using 100MB file size, which pretty much fits inside SSDs cache.

 

[Tomgang]

SSD can run just fine on sata 2. You just get a speed penalty off cause over sata 3. i have run like 6 sata SSD´s from Samsung and crucial on sata 2 and sata 3 on my old X58 system and none of them have ever failed. I have so far never had a SSD failing on me and i have run SSD since like 2011. I will say its more about that are the given sata SSD backward compatable with sata 2, if not you might get in trouble.

In short your max speed get limited to the half of sata 3 with sata 2. You will go from a max speed on sata 3 of 585 MB/s read/ride to sata 2 that is around 285 MB/s read/ride. But if you are coming from an HDD as OS drive to an SSD as OS drive. You will still get a huge difference in speed and how responsive your pc is.

Here are some test i dit with Samsung EVO 850 250 GB and Crucial MX300 275 GB on sata two. Its the result to the left, that is the SSD test. On the right side is just two WD velociraptor in raid 0 while i had those two.

This is on my newer laptop with an M.2 Sata SSD runs on sata 3 interface. Its a cheap SSD, so deffently not the fastes SSD out there, but it can give an idea of the speed loss from sata 3 to sata 2.

Here is my older Samsung 950 PRO NVMe M.2 SSD running on my X58, for those that might want a fast boot solution on an old pc. Its really nice with an NVMe SSD even throw this one is an older one nowm but still far better than any sata 3 SSD.

 

[forman313]

I did some tests a few years ago... SATA2 = SATA3 for all my workloads. The comparatively non existent access time is responsible for maybe 90% of the increased performance.
I actually lost performance when I tried a budget Marvel Sata3 controller. Intels onboard SATA2 beat it by a fair amount, with the exception of large file copy/seq. read/write ... which we dont need.

 

[juiseman]

You could just get 1 of these if you want SATA III speed

https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?N=100007607 600022631&Submit=ENE

 

[Tomgang]

I did some tests a few years ago... SATA2 = SATA3 for all my workloads. The comparatively non existent access time is responsible for maybe 90% of the increased performance.
I actually lost performance when I tried a budget Marvel Sata3 controller. Intels onboard SATA2 beat it by a fair amount, with the exception of large file copy/seq. read/write ... which we dont need.

Yes i can agreed about the marvell controlled sata 3 as my motherboard have onboard. Those suck balls. Not reccomended for OS drive, pretty unstable for me and max read/ride speed is only around 400/250 MB/s read/ride.

 

[king of swag187]

Still beats A400 and V300 when it comes to failure rates (by a large margin).

Definitely

 

[HD64G]

1) You are using outdated CrystalDiskMark 2.2
2) You are using 100MB file size, which pretty much fits inside SSDs cache.

Comparison is valid though as those tests are made on the same version of the program, using the same settings, on the same disk having almost identical data in it. And the results show difference depending on the workload. What you are trying to say?

 

[Ruyki]

My main system is sata 3 and my backup is a sata 2. I'm using pretty much the same SSDs on both. My main is faster but it is a newer platform with a better CPU so that could be part of it. In my experience, using a SSD with sata 2 is definitely worth it. It's not as fast as a sata 3 but it's pretty close and much much faster than a mechanical drive.

My sata 2 system mainboard actually has sata 3 ports but I don't use them since the sata 2 has better small file write performance on this board. The sata 2 controller is inside the chipset and the sata 3 is on a separate chip. The chipset controller is probably higher quality.

My backup system is a P7P55D-E Deluxe with a X3440 by the way.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

One of the biggest benefits of SSDs is the near-instantaneous seek time. A spinning disk drive has heads that must move around to access different parts of the drive. An SSD can access the entire drive more quickly and equally. So yes, the faster r/w speeds are one benefit, but even on SATA II you will “feel” the difference thanks to the improved seek time more than anything else. Even an old SSD will breathe new life in a system over a spinning disk.

To give you an idea, my old 4,1 MacPro was SATA II, and I couldn’t tell the difference between that interface and a PCIe to SATA III expansion card with the exact same SSD that had a rated 500 r/w speed. Sure it showed in benches, but load and access times were not noticeably different.