Sata II vs Sata III

Is there a noticeable difference in upgrading from a SATA II SSD to a SATA III for regular recreational use? i.e. gaming (new games, high/ultra settings), web browsing, watching movies.

Also, Should I have any worries about using a crucial c4 SATA III SSD in a sager 8150? Intel was recommended as being significantly more reliable in sagers (by someone working in reselling sagers).

 

Okay so having a SATAII Sdd in a SATAIII laptop will barley if any help.
but putting a sataIII ssd from II to III will be pretty big, depending on the sdd 50-200mb/s from my experiences

 

For gaming, it depends on how much sequential transfers the game requires (map loading, sizes, etc). It wouldn't be the same difference going from an HDD to an SSD.
For web browsing watching movies, no difference. Maybe .5sec in loading app times, but once in the app, no difference.

 

1. Crucial M4 is just as good as the Intel 510. They use the same controller, but Crucial has actually had a much longer experience with Marvell. See C300, indisputably the best drive from 2010.

2. As for SATA 3 drive in a SATA 2 port, there will be a difference, even a noticeable one, but not enough to really worry about. Random performance, which is a large chunk of an OS drive's work, is not impacted by the switch as the random speeds are never more than 70-ish MB/s, well under the SATA 2 head. Only large sequentials will see a difference. For your uses, don't worry about it, get the M4. Best drive out there by far.

 

I think the Samsung 470 256GB gave the Crucial C300 more than just a run for it's money, especially considering it's power consumption with the kinds of speeds it was putting out. It was released late in 2010 but I think it's probably the best SATA II SSD that was unveiled ever. But on topic, OP, you'll notice more a jump if you are using a SATA III in reading/writing drives than you will with anything else. SATA III SSDs can reach up to speeds about twice that of SATA II, so you'll notice a difference.

 

Agreed, if you are talking about power consumption too, you are right. I guess I was only thinking pure performance. The 470 for sure seems to have been a great drive, that would be my pick for a SATA 2 drive today for sure. For SATA 3, go with an M4.

 

Nope. SATA2 vs SATA3 is irrelevant. SATA2 vs SATA3 only matters in maximum theoretical bandwidth. And the only time you actually reach maximum bandwidth is when you are doing large sequential read patterns.

The reality is that 95% of the data read patterns on your system are random reads. The Random read speeds are what really matter with an SSD, because that is what you actually do during your day-to-day activities. And an SSDs Random Read speed will not even come close to saturating SATA2 bandwidth, so SATA3 bandwidth is irrelevant. So if you look at any number or measurement for an SSD, it should be Random Read speeds, not maximum theoretical bandwidth (SATA2 / SATA3).

Now, it may turn out that the best drive for a person may coincidentally happen to be SATA3-capable. But the reason for picking that drive should be Random Read performance, and not the fact that it is SATA3-capable.

Nope, I wouldn't worry about it.

Techinically, if you absolutely want reliability above all else, get an Intel drive. Intel SSDs have a field RMA rate of about 0.6%, versus other SSD manufacturers that have an RMA rate of about 2.2% - 2.5%. ( source).

But in reality, it doesn't really matter. The chance that you will need to RMA a drive from either Intel or Crucial is so small, that it might as well be 0% for you. Your friend at Sager is a different story, because he sees 100s or 1000s of SSDs at his job, and can start noticing a pattern between Intel vs. Everyone Else. But for someone like you buying a single SSD, it doesn't matter.

 

Thanks a lot for the responses, greatly appreciated. Im going to looking more into random read benchmarks and learn what I can