WD Caviar Black 640 GB: SATA II vs SATA III - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

WD Caviar Black 640 GB: SATA II vs SATA III

 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 7 (permalink) Old 12-26-2010, 05:48 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
thehybridkiwi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 193
Rep: 9 (Unique: 9)
I recently acquired a new Western Digital Caviar Black 640 GB with 64 MB cache and SATA III compatibility ( WD6402AAEX ).

The below results compare the performance of the hard drive when hooked up to the motherboard's SATA II port versus the SATA III port.

The hard drive is NTFS-formatted and empty of any content.

Notable differences:
  • The burst speed is greater in SATA III configuration.
  • The read speeds for file benchmarks are generally greater in SATA III configuration.

This post aims to provide some insight into the performance differences between using the SATA II port versus the SATA III port on your motherboard for conventional HDD's (that are SATA III compatible).

Benchmark (Read)
wdcbsatacompbenchmarkre.png

Random Access (Read)
wdcbsatacomprandomacces.png

Extra Tests (Read)
wdcbsatacompextratestsr.png

File Benchmark (32 KB)
wdcbsatacompfilebenchma.png

File Benchmark (128 KB)
wdcbsatacompfilebenchma.png

File Benchmark (1 MB)
wdcbsatacompfilebenchma.png

File Benchmark (16 MB)
wdcbsatacompfilebenchma.png

File Benchmark (64 MB)
wdcbsatacompfilebenchma.png

File Benchmark (512 MB)
wdcbsatacompfilebenchma.png

Additional Tags: plugged into attached to using compared to
thehybridkiwi is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 7 (permalink) Old 02-19-2011, 06:34 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Haze80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Miami Florida
Posts: 247
Rep: 7 (Unique: 7)
Not much difference huh... I wonder if the same holds true in a raid 0 setup?
Haze80 is offline  
post #3 of 7 (permalink) Old 10-02-2011, 10:21 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
jchambers2586's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 62
Rep: 0
It should be because both drive have the same speed.

jchambers2586 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 7 (permalink) Old 08-30-2012, 05:22 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Kramy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 9,523
Rep: 1075 (Unique: 804)
I tossed your first two benchmarks into a spreadsheet. smile.gif

overclocknetbenchmarkss.png

Average 1% performance increase by running in SATA3 mode - not bad. wink.gif I suspect that a more modern drive that can push around 200MB/sec sequential would have a larger performance difference - but someone that owns one would have to run the benchmarks to find out for sure.


I didn't include the File Benchmarks because without exact numbers it's hard to be accurate. But looking at this 32K File Benchmark, it's easy to see the difference is far larger than 1%.

wdcbsatacompfilebenchma.png

With the smaller File Benchmarks, what you are seeing is the effect of cache - the reads sit in cache, enabling the drive to perform very close to SATA2 or SATA3's theoretical limits. That's the reason you can get results like this out of somewhat slow 64MB cache 'Green' drives.

crystaldiskmarkv30150mb.png

Knocks the socks off an SSD, right? No, not really. As soon as you bump up the size of the test set, you get more realistic numbers:

crystaldiskmarkv3011000.png

In your benchmarks once you reach 64MB test size the performance difference starts to diminish, because the drive doesn't have enough cache for the entire benchmark file. In the 512MB benchmark we can see that SATA2 vs SATA3 is very close, slightly favouring SATA3.

wdcbsatacompfilebenchma.png

Small file benchmarks don't tell us much about real world performance, but there are a few select tasks that they may apply to - the autosave feature in Office, for example. If you're reading or saving the same file over and over, you're going to get the speed you see in in the smaller File Benchmarks. But most of the time the first two benchmarks in this thread are probably more relevant.

1%! Woohoo! biggrin.gifthumb.gif
Kramy is offline  
post #5 of 7 (permalink) Old 08-30-2012, 09:57 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,795
Rep: 296 (Unique: 218)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kramy View Post

Average 1% performance increase by running in SATA3 mode - not bad. wink.gif I suspect that a more modern drive that can push around 200MB/sec sequential would have a larger performance difference - but someone that owns one would have to run the benchmarks to find out for sure.

First, I'd like to say thanks for summarizing the benchmarks. As for modern HDDs saturating SATA 2, they're not quite there yet. SSDs can do around 250+MB/s sequential on SATA2. The 1TB VelociRaptor and modern high density drives are getting close to maxing out SATA2 but they haven't reached it quite yet.
rui-no-onna is offline  
post #6 of 7 (permalink) Old 08-31-2012, 09:20 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Kitarist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 1,531
Rep: 18 (Unique: 18)
Thanks for this benchmark really useful smile.gif

Music has to breathe and sweat. You have to play it live.

Kitarist is offline  
post #7 of 7 (permalink) Old 08-31-2012, 08:07 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Kramy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 9,523
Rep: 1075 (Unique: 804)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rui-no-onna View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kramy View Post

Average 1% performance increase by running in SATA3 mode - not bad. wink.gif I suspect that a more modern drive that can push around 200MB/sec sequential would have a larger performance difference - but someone that owns one would have to run the benchmarks to find out for sure.

First, I'd like to say thanks for summarizing the benchmarks. As for modern HDDs saturating SATA 2, they're not quite there yet.
Not yet, but they're creeping up there. One thing to remember - HDDs are more bursty than SSDs, which have more constant throughput. HDDs send through a lot of data and then flatline, then send through another large batch of data. It won't have a huge impact on their performance, but as they get closer to SATA2's limits, the performance improvement will creep upward from 1%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rui-no-onna View Post

SSDs can do around 250+MB/s sequential on SATA2. The 1TB VelociRaptor and modern high density drives are getting close to maxing out SATA2 but they haven't reached it quite yet.
However, when SATA4 comes out (And who knows when that will be...!), I'm pretty sure almost overnight they'll have 1100MB/sec SSDs. tongue.gif No creeping there - if there's a new standard, put out a new controller!
Kramy is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off