# Speed difference between Sata II and Sata III cables



## PaulieG (Jan 18, 2012)

I just bought a Corsair Force GT 120gb SSD to replace my first generation Sandforce drive. Corsair claims up to a 550 mb/s read. Reviews have also shown this to be true. However, I'm not getting close to this. I'm only hitting about 390. The motherboard has Sata III ports, so I'm not sure why I'm not getting a faster read. I've read conflicting information regarding cables. Some say that using Sata II cables makes no difference. Others argue that you need Sata III cables to max out speeds. I'm currently using Sata II cables. Does anyone know for sure if the cables can really make that much of a difference?


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jan 18, 2012)

Marvell controller?


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 18, 2012)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Marvell controller?



Yes, it's a Marvell controller. The board is a Asrock Extreme4 Gen3. Funny thing is, the thing is so damn fast already, I'm not sure it really matters for real world computing. It's just a matter of getting the drive to do what it is capable of. Think the Marvell controller is to blame?


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jan 18, 2012)

Google the exact type, the first one was a pos. Not sure if they made new ones and how those perform.


----------



## 50eurouser (Jan 18, 2012)

Dude stop using marvell controller, just plug it in Z68 SATA3 ports and you 'll be fine. What a waste to use that crappy controller when you have the best sata3.


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 18, 2012)

50eurouser said:


> Dude stop using marvell controller, just plug it in Z68 SATA3 ports and you 'll be fine. What a waste to use that crappy controller when you have the best sata3.



Thing is, before I installed the Marvell, I was gwtting just 315 mb/s. 

Any thoughts on the cables?


----------



## 50eurouser (Jan 18, 2012)

Paulieg said:


> Thing is, before I installed the Marvell, I was gwtting just 315 mb/s.
> 
> Any thoughts on the cables?



Corsair Max Values ~550MB Read/Write attainable with ATTO benchmark. Make sure u use AHCI mode and TRIM is on.


----------



## CJCerny (Jan 18, 2012)

I could be wrong, but since you are already getting transfer rates above the maximum theoretical limit of SATA2 (3.0gbs or 375mBs), I would have to say that the cable is not your issue.


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 18, 2012)

50eurouser said:


> Corsair Max Values ~550MB Read/Write attainable with ATTO benchmark. Make sure u use AHCI mode and TRIM is on.



I'm in AHCI mode already, and TRIMS is on. I haven't tried ATTO yet. Just going by HD Tune. I'll run ATTO tonight.


----------



## INSTG8R (Jan 18, 2012)

Yeah get off the Marvell controller it's poor compared to the Intel. As for the cables I dunno about that one either. I know the "SATA III" cables that came with my MoBo are definitely beefier than the "SATA II" Cables. Does it make a difference? dunno your the one with the fast ass SSD you would have to test it with both cables.


----------



## 50eurouser (Jan 18, 2012)

Paulieg said:


> I'm in AHCI mode already, and TRIMS is on. I haven't tried ATTO yet. Just going by HD Tune. I'll run ATTO tonight.



Post some benchmarks from hdtune.


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 18, 2012)

INSTG8R said:


> Yeah get off the Marvell controller it's poor compared to the Intel. As for the cables I dunno about that one either. I know the "SATA III" cables that came with my MoBo are definitely beefier than the "SATA II" Cables. Does it make a difference? dunno your the one with the fast ass SSD you would have to test it with both cables.



I looked to see if I missed SATA 3 cables in the box. Nope. Looks like Asrock just includes the SATA2, or I managed to misplace them. I have so many cables lying around, I'm bound to lose some. I'd have my own answer if I had a Sata 3 cable lying around. . As I mentioned above, I had a worse read before I had the Marvell installed, which I thought was odd. I dunno. 



50eurouser said:


> Post some benchmarks from hdtune.



Will do, after I get home from work this evening.


----------



## scaminatrix (Jan 18, 2012)

At the risk of basically calling you a noob - BIOS settings? Make sure that the controller is set to SATA 3 in BIOS and not Auto or something similarly gay.


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 18, 2012)

scaminatrix said:


> At the risk of basically calling you a noob - BIOS settings? Make sure that the controller is set to SATA 3 in BIOS and not Auto or something similarly gay.



LOL. Not offended, but yes, all bios settings are as they should be.


----------



## mrw1986 (Jan 18, 2012)

It's the Marvell controller. I have the P67 version of that board and both use the same controllers. Go on the Intel controller and the difference will be huge. There's reviews about it all over ther web.


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 18, 2012)

mrw1986 said:


> It's the Marvell controller. I have the P67 version of that board and both use the same controllers. Go on the Intel controller and the difference will be huge. There's reviews about it all over ther web.



That's what I would have thought, but as I mentioned above, my reads were worse before I installed the Marvell controller. Maybe it was just a freak thing, being the first time I benchmarked the drive. I'll switch back to the Intel controller tonight, and see what happens.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jan 18, 2012)

According to Asus Marvel SATA 6 controllers are meant for data drives and that you should only use the P67 SATA 6 for boot drives. In fact I think they disabled booting on the marvel controller in the bios. Surprised Asrock hasn't done the same.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 18, 2012)

not sure about your board, but dont most of the intel boards only have two of the 6Gb ports, and the rest 3Gb? maybe you just connected it to the wrong ports initially.


but yes i'm with everyone else, get the hell off the marvel POS. they're always horribly slow.


----------



## mrw1986 (Jan 18, 2012)

This board has 4 6gb ports. 2 provided by Intel and 2 provided by Marvell. Same as my P67 version.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 18, 2012)

mrw1986 said:


> This board has 4 6gb ports. 2 provided by Intel and 2 provided by Marvell. Same as my P67 version.



thanks. thats what i was thinking then, he needs to make sure he uses one of the two intel 6Gb ports.


----------



## mrw1986 (Jan 18, 2012)

Also, it would have helped if you bought that C300 off me Paulie


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 18, 2012)

I'll play around with things tonight. Admittedly, I was tired last night, and did the install in a hurry, so I may have missed something that I usually wouldn't.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 18, 2012)

Marvell controller + not using ATTO = the problem here. Get on the Intel controller and run ATTO to see listed specifications of the drive as that application is how MFG get their specs in the first place. 

I believe that the cables do matter, but not certain (a little google bird told me that). I have always used S3 cables w S3 drives.

EDIT: Dont run HDTune... lets say what the first letters mean in HDTune... Hard Drive. ATTO to show specs with compressible data, ASS SSD to show uncompressible data speeds. HDTune and HDtach are made for HDD's. And unless they updated them REALLY recently to change the way they measure, these results should not be used as the Gospel due to the way they get their results.


----------



## TheOne (Jan 18, 2012)

As everyone has said ditch the Marvell controller, the one on your board cannot reach SATAIII speeds and is capped at a max theoretical of 5Gb/s since it is tied to a single PCIE 2.0 lane.

Cables shouldn't matter, HDTune just gives more realistic scores than ATTO, if your scores are still low then maybe try switching out some drivers, RST to MSAHCI or vice versa, you could switch out the cable, but it probably won't make a difference.

Make sure you use the second set of gray ports as those are your Intel SATAIII.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 18, 2012)

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.p...k=view&id=270&Itemid=38&limit=1&limitstart=11



> Sequential test tools such as ATTO Disk Benchmark, HD-Tach, HD-Tune, Passmark PerformaceTest , CrystalDiskMark, and AS-SSD are all usable benchmarks, but occasionally report performance inconsistencies because of buffered spot sampling and NAND condition. Additionally, CrystalDiskMark and AS-SSD often report much lower sequential read and write bandwidth speeds compared to HD-Tach and HD-Tune, while ATTO Disk Benchmark relies on file size chucks to report bandwidth. The sequential bandwidth speeds reported by CrystalDiskMark and AS-SSD are so low they become questionable, *while Passmark PerformaceTest, HD-Tach, and HD-Tune reveal very little information about buffer saturation and are prone to NAND condition impacting performance results*.
> 
> *Of the sequential tools, ATTO Disk Benchmark is most preferred because it illustrates bandwidth speed results at varying file size transfers*. From my testing for this article and in other projects, along with the results I've seen from the software tools used, I can conclude that ATTO Disk Benchmark has proven itself consistent in recording SSD bandwidth results and doesn't seem to have a preference for faster SSD DRAM cache mechanisms found in some SSDs. The variety of file size chunks that it tests does give a broad picture of bandwidth performance at each level. Although ATTO is not perfect and still uses spot-testing, it's less imperfect for SSD testing than many of the other alternatives...
> 
> ...AS-SSD and CrystalDiskMark (3.0 and later) all offer IOPS performance at deep queue depth, and express their results in MB/s rather then the Input/Output Per Second result. These are also very helpful at illustrating SSD performance, and useful in comparison. *While HD-Tune does offer IOPS performance, this tool is limited to a single queue depth and is meaningless to SSDs.*


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Jan 18, 2012)

According to SerialATA.org there is no difference between cables but just quality of the cable. To achieve 6gbs a high quality cable is required, but any cable will work as long as it has enough copper and low resistance.

http://www.serialata.org/documents/SATA-Revision-3.0-FAQ-FINAL.pdf

See Section 9.

I believe this is part of JEDEC set standards.

One thing that was mentioned was NCQ needs to be enabled.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 18, 2012)

Update your intel storage drivers.


----------



## 1freedude (Jan 18, 2012)

Steevo said:


> Update your intel storage drivers.



Right, and my sabertooth x58 needed a bios update to get the marvel right.
something else...I'm confused as to what you mean by install,  as in the drivers?


----------



## MT Alex (Jan 18, 2012)

I have a Corsair Force 3 120GB, and an AsRock Extreme 4 Gen 3 P67, also using a SATA II cable.  I just ran an ATTO for you to compare with.  I also assumed it would be faster.


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 18, 2012)

Well, I was probably worried for nothing, based on the ATTO bench. Looks like I'm hitting well above 500 read. I wonder why HD Tune reports much slower speeds?


----------



## MT Alex (Jan 18, 2012)

Dang, I thought something was jacked up.  Yours is quite a bit faster.


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 18, 2012)

MT Alex said:


> Dang, I thought something was jacked up.  Yours is quite a bit faster.



Yeah, it's supposed to be one of the fastest 2nd gen SF drives. Yours should be a little faster, from what I'm seeing from your ATTO bench. In my case, I think it's an issue with HD Tune. Maybe it needs an update for the newer drives?


----------



## MT Alex (Jan 18, 2012)

Silly me, I could have sworn I changed IDE to AHCI  I did, but it's when I was using the Marvell controller.

If I wouldn't have seen your bench, I would still have things screwy.


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 18, 2012)

MT Alex said:


> Silly me, I could have sworn I changed IDE to AHCI  I did, but it's when I was using the Marvell controller.
> 
> If I wouldn't have seen your bench, I would still have things screwy.
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/120118/Untitled251.jpg



Funny how that works sometimes. I'm still wondering why HD tune is reporting screwy.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 18, 2012)

try using a newer HDTune. Like 4.61.

I have no comments about test validity...it reports exactly what I expect, and I've never seen results like yours.

Contrary to EarthDog's post, I wanna jsut make it obvious that that comment about HDTune refers to the IOP test only, which you are not using.


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 18, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> try using a newer HDTune. Like 4.61.
> 
> I have no comments about test validity...it reports exactly what I expect, and I've never seen results like yours.
> 
> Contrary to EarthDog's post, I wanna jsut make it obvious that that comment about HDTune refers to the IOP test only, which you are not using.



Good catch Dave. Didn't realize the version on my flash drive was that old. Damn!


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 18, 2012)

I play with HDTune a lot. 3rd favorite game, next to the 3DMarks and SuperPi.


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 18, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> I play with HDTune a lot. 3rd favorite game, next to the 3DMarks and SuperPi.



Well, it was a good theory, but it gave me close to the same results as 2.55 did. Seems ATTO reads it correct, and HD Tune does not. Hmm.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 18, 2012)

HD Tune is crap. Try the trial Pro version to get accurate results. According to it my RAID array of SSD's only does 200ish average, copying files or otherwise I know it to be much more.


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 18, 2012)

Steevo said:


> HD Tune is crap. Try the trial Pro version to get accurate results. According to it my RAID array of SSD's only does 200ish average, copying files or otherwise I know it to be much more.



Yeah, my last run was with the Pro trial. The benchmark test still reports wrong, but the IOPS seems to report correctly.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 19, 2012)

Paulieg said:


> Well, I was probably worried for nothing, based on the ATTO bench. Looks like I'm hitting well above 500 read. I wonder why HD Tune reports much slower speeds?
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/120118/HDD_bench.png


Because of the type of test it is. I believe that, aside from all all of its other weaknesess in benching SSDs, that it uses data that is not compressible. OCZ SF2281(?) drives compress files and that is why it shows such great performance in ATTO but not in AS SSD or CDM which also uses data that is not very compressible. 

IOMeter
AS SSD
CDM
ATTO 

... all valid SSD benchmarks. Others, because of the way they test (buffered spot samples) the accuracy comes in to question (according to that article).

@ Cad - You are right, but took that out of context really. It was just another example of how poor that program can be when testing SSDs. The important thing to note is in bold at the end of the first paragraph . Nothing is perfect (including ATTO), but there are better tools that HDTune/Tach for the job is the point.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 19, 2012)

most SSD's are slow with non compressible data, since they use compression to boost their speed.

its the key difference between say, a vertex III and an agility III from OCZ.


this is why ATTO is used, because its how the SSD makers test their drives - with compressible data.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 19, 2012)

Weird. HDTune works perfectly fine with my Crucial M4 and Corsair F60. I must assume that neither uses much compression then, as both report exactly the numbers the OEMs say they should.

Interesting info though.

Screens(both drives have 49.8 GB of data):


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 19, 2012)

Notice those are not SF drives (which are terrible with incompressible data)? 

EDIT: The F60 is SF... hmmm...

EDIT2: Its the 12xx SF controller...I dont know if it was better at handling imcompressible data...

EDIT3: Good god that performance is all over the map with that drive!!!


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 19, 2012)

EarthDog said:


> EDIT3: Good god that performance is all over the map with that drive!!!



Yep. That's wha happens when it's near full. Empty(tested two days ago), it's just a stright solid line. The access time pattern is interesting in SSD's, period, too.

I also see expected performance from mechanical drives, so I'm not sure why noone likes it much. OEMs like to use other programs...of course, becuase they portray the product in the best light possible. HDTune seems, to me, to portray accurate real-world results rather than optimized results.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 19, 2012)

For me the Pro version worked perfect and the results were almost exactly the same as ATTO provided. 


I know for a fact my drives can sustain over 200MBps of write as my mechanical array can supply 200+ of read, and copying large already compressed files and timing it, or using windows to tell me how many bytes per second it comes out to 209MBps or so, and even my large home movies, or some ziped folders with my pictures in them perform the same. 


The standard HD Tune when performing write tests shows only about 170ish write on my SSD array though. So it is NOT indicative of real world performance for me.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 19, 2012)

Its made for mechanical drives (HD = HARD DRIVE) that isnt in question here as HDD results SHOULD be spot on with those applications (HDTune/Tach).

As far as HDTune giving real world results... well. In essence you are correct. A lot of files a person uses are not compressible (I think music is one that is difficult to compress?) so that does show the differences in the controllers and its compression abilities. That said, and as said before by me and subsequently others, that manufacturers use ATTO to gauge performance on the drive. So in order to not have people new to SSD's running applications that dont remotely show their specifications, ATTO should be used when trying to see if the drive is matching its specs (to bring this back on topic to the thread! ).

Our SSD reviews, after a discussion a year ago or so, do not use HDTune or HDTach because of that article. I see other major sites, like Anand are still using it so that makes us all scratch our heads a bit since they are one of the more respected review sites out there. I talked to Anand and he is aware of the article and the programs shortcomings. But since they used it in the past and is a comparable metric across drives, its still used regardless.


----------

