SATA II and SATA III HDDs....

[DeltrusDisc]

So I've heard from people who have SATA III HDDs that they see higher read and write times on their SATA III HDDs, however I've had some people say stuff like "HDDs don't need that much bandwidth." It's apparent that the HDDs can at least go past 3.0GB/s bandwidth if people with SATA III HDDs are at least seeing something of an improvement on reads and writes, so I was wondering if anyone knows how big of an increase they are. Perhaps if you know a website that has compared them, I'd love to see. Seems like most people are testing SSDs nowadays and what not, and while rightly so, HDDs are not entirely out of the market yet, so I'm just wondering if anyone has seen anything.

For instance, a comparison between a WD Caviar Black SATA II to a WD Caviar Black SATA III.

Thanks for taking the time to read this!

Edit: oh woohoo 1,500 posts.

[ispano]

Physical spinning disks can barely get up to SATA speeds, much less SATAII and SATAIII, and that's 10,000RPM drives. The only way normal current drives can go beyond that is when they transfer to or from cache, which is not really something to base performance off of.

[Deleted]

Above post is basically right. However with technology constantly evolving, if you have the option to move into the SATA III market, then do so as it will become more mainstream in the future.

[Deleted]

It's apparent that the HDDs can at least go past 3.0GB/s bandwidth if people with SATA III HDDs are at least seeing something of an improvement on reads and writes,

No, what that makes apparent is that the newer drives are simply faster.

SATA I has an approximate maximum transfer speed of 150mb/s.
SATA II has an approximate maximum transfer speed of 300mb/s.
SATA III has an approximate maximum transfer speed of 600mb/s.

New Mechanical Hard drives have a transfer speed in the range of 100-120mb/s.
New Solid State drives have a transfer speed in the range of 500-550mb/s.

SATA III has certain interface improvements that makes it desirable to use, but these will typically be invisible to the end user and are only minor 'tweaks'.

[Deleted]

Above post is basically right. However with technology constantly evolving, if you have the option to move into the SATA III market, then do so as it will become more mainstream in the future.

Why would you want them mainstream? They hardly reach SATA II speeds (The 10K RPM drives like the WD Velociraptor ones), SATA III would be a waste if it costs more.

[dicertification]

Why would you want them mainstream? They hardly reach SATA II speeds (The 10K RPM drives like the WD Velociraptor ones), SATA III would be a waste if it costs more.

Yea makes no sense. I don't even read posts with that big black evoss sig anymore.

[Nightbliss]

While I agree that mechanical disks are a joke (the Velociraptor ones cost too much per gb) if you have the chance to grab a SATAIII MB do it.
Theres nothing to lose and its not like they are expensive or much expensive comparing to non SATA III boards.

My Raid0 F3 500GB has an average Seq Read/Write of 220Mb/s and peaks at 300Mb/s!

[velfurious]

While I agree that mechanical disks are a joke (the Velociraptor ones cost too much per gb) if you have the chance to grab a SATAIII MB do it.
Theres nothing to lose and its not like they are expensive or much expensive comparing to non SATA III boards.

My Raid0 F3 500GB has an average Seq Read/Write of 220Mb/s and peaks at 300Mb/s!

You realize of course you just proved what people were saying...

When in raid 0, each F3 is on a separate sata channel. So what you said is each drive average sequential read/write is 110mb/s to 150mb/s

Which is around sata 1 speeds.

[Deleted]

While I agree that mechanical disks are a joke (the Velociraptor ones cost too much per gb) if you have the chance to grab a SATAIII MB do it.
Theres nothing to lose and its not like they are expensive or much expensive comparing to non SATA III boards.

My Raid0 F3 500GB has an average Seq Read/Write of 220Mb/s and peaks at 300Mb/s!

RAID0, says enough, doesn't it?

If the both drives are the same price and your motherboard has SATA III connections, get one. If it's more expensive, stay the hell away from it.

[DeltrusDisc]

While I agree that mechanical disks are a joke (the Velociraptor ones cost too much per gb) if you have the chance to grab a SATAIII MB do it.
Theres nothing to lose and its not like they are expensive or much expensive comparing to non SATA III boards.

My Raid0 F3 500GB has an average Seq Read/Write of 220Mb/s and peaks at 300Mb/s!

Oh yeah, I have a P8P67 from Asus, so I have 4 SATA III ports sitting there going unused that I drool at. When I am able to, I'd like to probably get 1 Vertex 3 SSD for one of them as a boot and WoW drive. Maybe 2 of the 3 left could have 2 RAID 0 WD C. Blacks for frapsing.

[Nightbliss]

You realize of course you just proved what people were saying...

When in raid 0, each F3 is on a separate sata channel. So what you said is each drive average sequential read/write is 110mb/s to 150mb/s (note the lowercase m.. it's important).

Which is around sata 1 speeds.

Are you stupid?
SATAIII boards don't differ in prices so yes, why wouldn't I get a ferrari for the same price of a fiat?
Seriously, use your brain.

Mod Warning: Calm down.

[Deleted]

Are you stupid?
SATAIII boards don't differ in prices so yes, why wouldn't I get a ferrari for the same price of a fiat?
Seriously, use your brain.

Boards. We're talking drives here.

[vesseblah]

Are you stupid?
SATAIII boards don't differ in prices so yes, why wouldn't I get a ferrari for the same price of a fiat?
Seriously, use your brain.

Before making bigger fool of yourself calling others stupid, guess what's the main difference between Intel's H61 and H67 chipsets which are both meant for Sandy Bridges? Guess which feature is dropped in H61 to lower the cost?

[Nightbliss]

Before making bigger fool of yourself calling others stupid, guess what's the main difference between Intel's H61 and H67 chipsets which are both meant for Sandy Bridges? Guess which feature is dropped in H61 to lower the cost?

Before being just as stupid, guess how much my AM3 Board with SATAIII costed?
And how much does the equivalent non SATAIII board costed?

Yea, thats right.

[Deleted]

Before being just as stupid, guess how much my AM3 Board with SATAIII costed?
And how much does the equivalent non SATAIII board costed?

Yea, thats right.

Incase you didn't get my other post, this is the thread title:
SATA II and SATA III HDDs....
Stop bitching about boards.

[Nightbliss]

I'm talking about boards.

PROBLEM?

[Deleted]

PROBLEM?

As its quite redundant to do so, yes.

[Deleted]

I'm talking about boards.

PROBLEM?

It's offtopic and not what OP asked for, major problem.

Here's the comparising of the WD CB SATA II vs SATA III
http://www.overclock.net/hard-drives...0-gb-sata.html

Not that much difference.

[DeltrusDisc]

I'm talking about boards.

PROBLEM?

Make your own thread discussing boards then. I originally made this thread discussing the difference one could see in HDDs that are SATA II to SATA III.

As in a comparison between the two following HDDs, for instance:

WD Caviar Black 1TB 7200 RPM SATA II
WD Caviar Black 1TB 7200 RPM SATA III

This really has nothing to do with motherboards.

[Nightbliss]

Make your own thread discussing boards then. I originally made this thread discussing the difference one could see in HDDs that are SATA II to SATA III.

As in a comparison between the two following HDDs, for instance:

WD Caviar Black 1TB 7200 RPM SATA II
WD Caviar Black 1TB 7200 RPM SATA III

This really has nothing to do with motherboards.

Theres no difference.
/Thread

Not even SATAIII SSD's can blow SATAIII bandwith let alone mechanical hard drives.

Happy?