# Are SSDs effective when using SATA II ?



## 27MaD (Apr 7, 2019)

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 (Apr 7, 2019)

27MaD said:


> 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 (Apr 7, 2019)

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


----------



## dirtyferret (Apr 7, 2019)

See review in the link

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


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 7, 2019)

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 (Apr 7, 2019)

27MaD said:


> 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 (Apr 7, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 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.



dirtyferret said:


> See review in the link
> 
> https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sata-6gbps-performance-sata-3gbps,3110-7.html


The difference is like nothing ?!


----------



## Deeveo (Apr 7, 2019)

27MaD said:


> 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 (Apr 7, 2019)

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 (Apr 7, 2019)

27MaD said:


> 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 (Apr 7, 2019)

27MaD said:


> 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 (Apr 7, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 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 (Apr 7, 2019)

Mr.Scott said:


> 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 (Apr 7, 2019)

27MaD said:


> 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 (Apr 9, 2019)

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 (Apr 9, 2019)

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 (Apr 9, 2019)

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 (Apr 9, 2019)

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 (Apr 9, 2019)

Very helpful experiences here.


----------



## silentbogo (Apr 9, 2019)

27MaD said:


> 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 (Apr 9, 2019)

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 (Apr 9, 2019)

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


----------



## Deeveo (Apr 9, 2019)

silentbogo said:


> 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 (Apr 9, 2019)

Deeveo said:


> 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 (Apr 9, 2019)

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.


----------



## lZKoce (Apr 9, 2019)

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 (Apr 9, 2019)

Deeveo said:


> I wouldn't call PNY CS900 reliable


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


----------



## agent_x007 (Apr 9, 2019)

HD64G said:


> 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 (Apr 9, 2019)

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 (Apr 9, 2019)

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 (Apr 9, 2019)

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 (Apr 9, 2019)

forman313 said:


> 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 (Apr 9, 2019)

silentbogo said:


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


Definitely


----------



## HD64G (Apr 9, 2019)

agent_x007 said:


> 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 (Apr 9, 2019)

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 (Apr 10, 2019)

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.


----------

