bit-tech.net

Are On-Board SATA 6Gbps Ports Fast Enough?

Comments 1 to 25 of 33

Reply
GoodBytes 28th October 2010, 07:46 Quote
Interesting, but useless. We don't have any drive that goes that fast on SATA. And the fastest drive are on PCI-E. So there is nothing worry about, even down the line after 5 years.
SchizoFrog 28th October 2010, 07:50 Quote
Am I right in thinking that apart from SSD development which is flying ahead right now, there isn't anything that is likely to need this speed any time soon right?
BlackMage23 28th October 2010, 08:12 Quote
yeah, sounds like you only need SATA 6gb if you have a new SSD.
speedalini 28th October 2010, 08:12 Quote
Looks like the High Point Rocket would be a good way of adding SATA III capability to my Gigabyte EX58-UD5 board. How would this compare to the USB 3.0 equiped Asus U3S6 card?
Zoon 28th October 2010, 08:26 Quote
Wow. A simple chipset can mean double to triple the performance quite literally.

I suspect that with this kind of variation, that as SSDs become faster and cheaper and SATA3 becomes more and more common, that the chipset for the SATA3 is going to be as important as the chipset inside the SSD.
bluespider42 28th October 2010, 08:45 Quote
What drivers were used in the testing as I've heard that the marvell ones are rubbish and to stick with the ms ones.
Bindibadgi 28th October 2010, 08:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog
Am I right in thinking that apart from SSD development which is flying ahead right now, there isn't anything that is likely to need this speed any time soon right?

Need? Yes. Mass storage is the bottleneck of PC systems, behind internet access. It's still talking hundreds of MB/s whereas virtually every other component works in 10x++ performance figures.
HourBeforeDawn 28th October 2010, 09:05 Quote
Hmm well its nice to see AMD really has great chipset with its native support, but what Im wondering is how does this compare with RAID setups and using a Raid card in comparison to onboard Raid options? Primarily RAID 0 and RAID 5 setups, heck even RAID 50 (Also known as Raid 0+5 or Raid 5+0) would be nice to see.
Senilex 28th October 2010, 09:59 Quote
Out of interest, how long does the Rocket card take to initialize from a cold boot?
okenobi 28th October 2010, 10:05 Quote
I'm surprised AMD don't get a more complimentary write up here. The 850 based boards are clearly notably quicker for storage than the price equivalent 1156 boards. They also offer more PCI-E bandwidth, which would surely help if a Rocket card was added.

I know the Intel CPUs are quicker, but native SATA 6gig that is actually pretty quick AND USB3, without detracting from PCI-E bandwidth is surely something that "gamers" would appreciate. No?
Ph4ZeD 28th October 2010, 10:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Interesting, but useless. We don't have any drive that goes that fast on SATA. And the fastest drive are on PCI-E. So there is nothing worry about, even down the line after 5 years.

Useless is the best way to describe the quoted post.
[PUNK] crompers 28th October 2010, 12:32 Quote
i know has he missed the last year of developements?

this is interesting to me, i may welll purchase a c300 128gb soon, and was thinkin the highpoint card was obligatory, obviously not, the onboard ports dont do too bad a job at all. not as good, but you save £40 and some boot time
Combatus 28th October 2010, 12:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph4ZeD
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Interesting, but useless. We don't have any drive that goes that fast on SATA. And the fastest drive are on PCI-E. So there is nothing worry about, even down the line after 5 years.

Useless is the best way to describe the quoted post.

+1
Hakuren 28th October 2010, 15:43 Quote
I think that motherboards should carry mix of SATA 1 and SATA 3 ports. 2 SATA150 ports just for optical drives. Why should we waste good SATA2/3 port on a such sluggish device(s)? SATA3 will be plenty for next decade or even more as there is nothing which can replace classic HDDs in short term - SSDs are useless for serious storage applications.

On a RAID side note.
For small storage like 2x1*TB drives in RAID 1 running software RAID via chipset or via simple software RAID card is not an issue. Drop in performance is minimal just like load on CPU and system resources. But if you are serious about RAID then you need some serious hardware. Running software RAID5 with classic HDDs is completely bonkers. RAID 50 is not supported by ICH unless I missed something. Furthermore you need minimum 6 disks to implement it, and to get decent performance you need ~12 drives in the array, at which stage running RAID 50 is not an option because RAID6/60 is much more secure and logical choice.
GoodBytes 28th October 2010, 16:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph4ZeD
Useless is the best way to describe the quoted post.

Very well, find me an SSD on the market or coming in the market that reaches the speed of the slowest SATA 6Gbps, and we will talk.
Buying SATA card for not reason, just to have the highest speed possible, is not helpful in anyway, other than reducing your wallet size, as you have nothing to take advantage off the extra speed.
Claave 28th October 2010, 16:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph4ZeD
Useless is the best way to describe the quoted post.

Very well, find me an SSD on the market or coming in the market that reaches the speed of the slowest SATA 6Gbps, and we will talk.
Buying SATA card for not reason, just to have the highest speed possible, is not helpful in anyway, other than reducing your wallet size, as you have nothing to take advantage off the extra speed.

Just diffuse things a bit, the point Ph4ZeD is making is that these tests were conducted with the Crucial C300 256GB, so all of the speeds listed in the article are the speed of this SSD over the various connections.

At these kind of speeds, the C300 is brilliant - it loads games and apps noticeably quicker than any other storage device we've tested and generally makes your PC feel faster and more responsive.

Hope that explanations why people are making the comments they are :)
GoodBytes 28th October 2010, 16:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claave
Just diffuse things a bit, the point Ph4ZeD is making is that these tests were conducted with the Crucial C300 256GB, so all of the speeds listed in the article are the speed of this SSD over the various connections.

At these kind of speeds, the C300 is brilliant - it loads games and apps noticeably quicker than any other storage device we've tested and generally makes your PC feel faster and more responsive.

Hope that explanations why people are making the comments they are :)

Aha! Makes sense now.
Thanks
Fabou 28th October 2010, 16:54 Quote
@ hakuren
With blu ray coming sata 1 might not be enough for optical, therefore making sata 1 useless.
TheLostSwede 28th October 2010, 16:54 Quote
I'm sorry, but this test if full of flaws and mistakes.
The JMB362 is NOT a SATA 6Gbps controller, but a standard SATA 3Gbps controller http://www.jmicron.com/JMB362.html

The Gigabyte GA-X58-UD7 uses the Marvell 9128 controller and not the JMB362.

I think whoever did this test need to go over his test results again, as there's something very fishy going on here.
Terru 28th October 2010, 17:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senilex
Out of interest, how long does the Rocket card take to initialize from a cold boot?
+1

If a RAID card spends 10 extra seconds at boot, it is going to be a whole lot more frustrating to most potential users, just imagine!

"Hey, come watch how fast my new SSD is!"
"Why does it take so long to boot to windows?"
"You have to wait a bit more to see how fast it is...."
Combatus 28th October 2010, 20:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLostSwede
I'm sorry, but this test if full of flaws and mistakes.
The JMB362 is NOT a SATA 6Gbps controller, but a standard SATA 3Gbps controller http://www.jmicron.com/JMB362.html

The Gigabyte GA-X58-UD7 uses the Marvell 9128 controller and not the JMB362.

I think whoever did this test need to go over his test results again, as there's something very fishy going on here.

You're right in that the JMB362 is not a SATA 6Gbps controller however it is included with the GA-X58-UD7, at least it is on my rev 1.0 board but it's for the combined 3Gbps eSATA and USB ports. So is the JMicron JMB0363 aka Gigabyte SATA II controller. However, as I'm sure we meant the Marvell 9128 in the graphs and not the JMB362 I'll check this with Clive in the morning!
TheLostSwede 28th October 2010, 20:49 Quote
Well, while I'm pointing things out, it might be worth noting that the High Point Rocket 620 also uses the Marvell 9128 controller. I'm amazed at the huge performance differences and it's suggesting that either something is amiss in the tests, the BIOS settings were wrong, or different drivers were used between the various tests setups for the same controllers. Considering that all of the Marvell 9128 solutions are connected via a PCI Express x1 interface, they should all end up in the same ballpark in terms of performance.
GoodBytes 28th October 2010, 22:42 Quote
bogie170 29th October 2010, 19:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedalini
Looks like the High Point Rocket would be a good way of adding SATA III capability to my Gigabyte EX58-UD5 board. How would this compare to the USB 3.0 equiped Asus U3S6 card?

I'd like to see the ASUS U3S6 SATA3/USB3 PCI-E used in this comparison too. Seems another good way of upgrading your mobo to SATA 6GBS amd USB3.
glendronach 29th October 2010, 21:45 Quote
Weeds from chaff??
No weeds are useless, chaff is useless.
You mean WHEAT from CHAFF.
Explanation
When you harvest wheat from the fields it is in the form of grass seeds on stalks. The stalks are beaten to extract the grain followed by a process called winnowing which separates the wheat grains (product) from the chaff (husks, rubbish).
Hope that helps
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums