Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Hard Drives & Storage › SSD › Sata-600 vs PCI-e
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sata-600 vs PCI-e

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 
Hey guys,

Building myself a PC which Ill prolly buy at the end of this year. Now I have been wondering if its worth getting an SSD. My rig should be about 1350 euro with a 120GB agility 3 Ocz SSD, and about 1180 without. Wich is about 1700-1900 USD.

Something I dont understand the Agility 3 120 GB has speeds of 525/500 which in most cases is twice the speed of the older Agility 2 series. While the Agility 2 series can be more expensive even.

Also noticed PCI-e SSD's which are currently very very expensive but seeing how fast these SSD's grow I was thinking to save 170 euro's and get a PCI-e in the future dont know when abouts those PCI-e SSD's reach the 170 euro mark for alot better speeds than the sata-600 SSD's currently.

I know you can always wait for better stuff and never buy anything but seeing how fast those SSD's grow and seeing that the sata-600 SSD's are the current limit speed wise PCI-e should be the future for SSD's I think.
post #2 of 9
Hey,

The Agility 3 is much faster than the 2 because it uses the newer SATA standard. The latter has a bandwidth of 6Gbps instead of 3Gbps. If you want the best SATA SSD, go with one that uses synchronous flash. Here's a link for more information. smile.gif

Personally, I think PCI-E SSDs are overkill for people like us. They are more justifiable for benchmarkers or workstations and servers. But if you have the money, why not? Onboard these devices are SATA controllers, unified by a RAID chip, so that's why they are much faster. Make sure you take one with the newer SATA standard, for example with the SandForce SF-2281 controllers.

Also, theorethically, you could achieve the same performance as a PCI-E SSD with many SATA SSDs, provided your RAID card is good enough. That's not going to happen on onboard RAID though, as the controller is not a dedicated controller, but your CPU; it spends some cycles doing the parity calculation or what not for the RAID array.

Edit: Also, don't forget to consider the IOPS and not only the bandwidth. They are equally important!

Good luck smile.gif
post #3 of 9
Thread Starter 
I know currently those PCI-e SSD's are just way too expensive but what time are we looking at that they will greatly outpreform current Sata SSD's for a lesser value.

Also one thing that confuses me greatly, there is alot of speed tests on youtube about booting PC's and starting programs its all fun and games but if I would freshly install windows on a HDD it will prolly be equally as fast or close. But HDD when being used for extended periods and have alot of stuff saved on them will get slower and slower. But how is this with SSDs do they lose speed or acces times if their space is maxed out ?
post #4 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doubleome;14545305 
I know currently those PCI-e SSD's are just way too expensive but what time are we looking at that they will greatly outpreform current Sata SSD's for a lesser value.
I'm not so sure about them becoming cheaper, because they need additional hardware like the RAID chip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doubleome;14545305 
Also one thing that confuses me greatly, there is alot of speed tests on youtube about booting PC's and starting programs its all fun and games but if I would freshly install windows on a HDD it will prolly be equally as fast or close. But HDD when being used for extended periods and have alot of stuff saved on them will get slower and slower. But how is this with SSDs do they lose speed or acces times if their space is maxed out ?
What you may be referring to are the downsides of fragmentation. A HDD has a mechanical head that physically needs to move from one place to another to get to the data. SSDs don't need to do that. So when your Windows installation is old, its files might be spread over the entire disk, and files can themselves be split. This is when the hard drive performance drops. Typically, the seek time of a HDD is in the milliseconds...
Edited by The Smith - 8/11/11 at 10:25am
post #5 of 9
Thread Starter 
Ye so basicly SSDs dont need and shouldnt be defragmentated but doesnt that mean that does windows boot tests are abit invalid ? As HDD get increasingly slower over time. I for one dont like having to resinstall everything and have currently been running the same system for about 2 years without any problem I might add.
post #6 of 9
If by Windows boot tests you mean those which count the boot time to approximate the age and bloating of your OS, I'd say you are right. Having many programs to load at startup also impacts the SSD though. As explained, not as much as the HDD because the seek time is inexistent.
post #7 of 9
Thread Starter 
What would you guys say about SRT ?

The reason I dont really understand SRT is that even low capacity SSD's are expensive and are usually older slower series.

So what about 120GB agility 3 having installed OS + 1 game and some startup programs and use the rest for SRT ? Heard the SRT technology isnt very good for your SSD cuz of the many read/writes but current SSD's last up to 50-200 years they would only say its bad for your SSD if that would mean it reduces the lifetime to about 1 year from the 50-200 years?

Its just all abit confusing to me.
post #8 of 9
Thread Starter 
What I have been reading and hearing latly it seems its not really a save investment to buy a SSD today if you wanna stay under 200 euro.

Almost all drives say MTBF of 1.5 million hours but yet everyone says they cant be trusted except for the M4 or 320 + those are Sata II so you do get the acces time but lose the speed and noticed the M4 has a very slow write which shouldnt hurt for a OS/game drive.
post #9 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doubleome;14555582 
What would you guys say about SRT ?

The reason I dont really understand SRT is that even low capacity SSD's are expensive and are usually older slower series.

So what about 120GB agility 3 having installed OS + 1 game and some startup programs and use the rest for SRT ? Heard the SRT technology isnt very good for your SSD cuz of the many read/writes but current SSD's last up to 50-200 years they would only say its bad for your SSD if that would mean it reduces the lifetime to about 1 year from the 50-200 years?

Its just all abit confusing to me.
I have not tried SRT myself, but from what I understood, you set the SSD as being a cache in the BIOS, and when you get into Windows it doesn't appear. In fact, your SSD and your drive appear only as one drive. So you would not be able to install all of your OS plus one game on only the SSD. Your better option might just be to put your OS + a few games, and all the other programs and data for which speed isn't the most important on a larger hard drive.

As for reliability, SSDs have come a long way in the past years and there is no reason to worry anymore.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: SSD
Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Hard Drives & Storage › SSD › Sata-600 vs PCI-e