Sata 11 to Sata 3 Primary Disk Upgrade

Forums › Microsoft Windows › Sata 11 to Sata 3 Primary Disk Upgrade - Wheres my extra Speed

Nate1

50 posts

Geek

Topic # 87169 21-Jul-2011 21:38

Hi, Just moved the operating system accross to a new larger and apparently faster disk (Sata3) from a Sata 11 setup. OS is working has had no issues. Though running the windows perfomance analysis feature the Disk drive still scores a 5.9. Is there a feature I need to turn on somewhere to enable the faster data transfer (Bios perhaps)

Any ideas? Would love to get this PC running faster the RAM CPU etc all scores at least 2 points more the the Disk Data Transfer.

1 | 2

2450 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 147

Reply # 496448 21-Jul-2011 22:02

Sata 11!?

(Assume you actually mean SATA2, rather than you being from the future)

First of all, what disk is it? Spinning dists won't perform any better if you connect them to a SATA3 port.

Some SSD's will, but again, that all depends on what SSD you have.

So, more details?

michaelt

423 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 8

Reply # 496465 21-Jul-2011 22:21

My understanding is that 5.9 is the highest score Windows will give to a traditional hard drive. If you want to go higher, you need an SSD.

Anyway, Sata 3 (6.0Gbps) on hard drives is pretty much a gimmick. There aren't any hard drives on the market that can saturate a Sata 2 (3.0Gbps) link (with the possible exception of some enterprise 15k rpm drives), and very few that can saturate an original Sata (1.5Gbps) link. Even those that can, only do so for sequential access at the beginning of the drive. There might be a few exceptions for transfers to/from the disk cache, but that doesn't make much of an impact.

Basically, you're not going to see anything more than an incremental improvement unless you switch to an SSD. Sata 2 vs. Sata 3 makes no significant impact when it comes to hard drives.

Nety

2584 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Mod Emeritus

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 496502 22-Jul-2011 06:39

michaelt: My understanding is that 5.9 is the highest score Windows will give to a traditional hard drive. If you want to go higher, you need an SSD.

Anyway, Sata 3 (6.0Gbps) on hard drives is pretty much a gimmick. There aren't any hard drives on the market that can saturate a Sata 2 (3.0Gbps) link (with the possible exception of some enterprise 15k rpm drives), and very few that can saturate an original Sata (1.5Gbps) link. Even those that can, only do so for sequential access at the beginning of the drive. There might be a few exceptions for transfers to/from the disk cache, but that doesn't make much of an impact.

Basically, you're not going to see anything more than an incremental improvement unless you switch to an SSD. Sata 2 vs. Sata 3 makes no significant impact when it comes to hard drives.

+1 If you really want to see a jump in performance you have to go for SSD. With traditional HDD's you really need to do your homework on what their performance is like but as above the fastest will not saturate SATA2 and be a country mile of needing SATA 3.

Media centre PC - Case Silverstone LC16M with 2 X 80mm AcoustiFan DustPROOF, MOBO Gigabyte MA785GT-UD3H, CPU AMD X2 240 under volted, RAM 4 Gig DDR3 1033, HDD 120Gig System/512Gig data, Tuners 2 X Hauppauge HVR-3000, 1 X HVR-2200, Video Palit GT 220, Sound Realtek 886A HD (onboard), Optical LiteOn DH-401S Blue-ray using TotalMedia Theatre Power Corsair VX Series, 450W ATX PSU OS Windows 7 x64

Nate1

50 posts

Geek

Reply # 496503 22-Jul-2011 07:01

So sounds like Ive just installed a bigger drive... Dammit. Have a momentus at work which is alright but so little space.

Nate1

50 posts

Geek

Reply # 496508 22-Jul-2011 07:32

kyhwana2: Sata 11!?

(Assume you actually mean SATA2, rather than you being from the future)

First of all, what disk is it? Spinning dists won't perform any better if you connect them to a SATA3 port.

Some SSD's will, but again, that all depends on what SSD you have.

So, more details?

Same thing dude if you want to spell check become a primary school teacher.

hellonearthisman

1818 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 52

Trusted

Reply # 496537 22-Jul-2011 09:12

I upgraded from SATA2 to SATA3 (pcie controller) and I saw a speed increase, 60MB/s to 80MB/S

The SATA3 drives perform faster than my SATA2 7500rpm drives did.

Bung

2597 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 363

Reply # 496553 22-Jul-2011 09:50

hellonearthisman: I upgraded from SATA2 to SATA3 (pcie controller) and I saw a speed increase, 60MB/s to 80MB/S

The SATA3 drives perform faster than my SATA2 7500rpm drives did.

You would have seen the same increase even without the pciE card. SATA 2 would cope with 80MB/s.
What is the cache size comparison between your old drives and new drives?

Nate1

50 posts

Geek

Reply # 496556 22-Jul-2011 10:07

New HDD : WD1002FAEX Western Digital Black Caviar 1000GB (1TB) SATA 3 6Gb/s 7200RPM 64MB Cache

Two Old HDD,

Western Digital Caviar SE 640GB SATA II 7200RPM 16MB Cache
Western Digital Caviar SE 640GB SATA II 7200RPM 16MB Cache

one is still installed as D:

So has much more Cache, but doesn't rate any higher or feel (Noticeable Speed Increase) any faster.

Would something Like this be a better Option to get some more speed out of the Box
http://pbtech.co.nz/index.php?z=p&p=HDDSE5620&name=Seagate-500G-Momentus-XT-SATA-7200.132MB-with-4GB-

geekiegeek

2114 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 369

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 496566 22-Jul-2011 10:27

as stated by others the only way you are going to get a really noticable speed increase is to go for an SSD, even a SATA2 SSD will blow your SATA3 hard drive out of the water.

When you live your life on Twitter and Facebook, and are only friends with like minded people on Twitter and Facebook, you are not living in the real world. You are living in a narcissistic echo chamber.

My thoughts are my own and are in no way representative of my employer.

hellonearthisman

1818 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 52

Trusted

Reply # 496610 22-Jul-2011 11:40

Bung:
hellonearthisman: I upgraded from SATA2 to SATA3 (pcie controller) and I saw a speed increase, 60MB/s to 80MB/S

The SATA3 drives perform faster than my SATA2 7500rpm drives did.

You would have seen the same increase even without the pciE card. SATA 2 would cope with 80MB/s.
What is the cache size comparison between your old drives and new drives?

Same Cache size. I will try one of the drives on the Sata2 to see if there is a difference.

michaelt

423 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 8

Reply # 496614 22-Jul-2011 11:45

hellonearthisman: I upgraded from SATA2 to SATA3 (pcie controller) and I saw a speed increase, 60MB/s to 80MB/S

The SATA3 drives perform faster than my SATA2 7500rpm drives did.

That can easily be explained by higher platter density.

The more data there is on a hard drive platter, the more data your disk can read in one rotation so the faster your sequential read and write speeds. It should have nothing to do with the interface. SATA, SATA II and SATA III are all more than fast enough for those speeds.

Nate1

50 posts

Geek

Reply # 496616 22-Jul-2011 11:47

hellonearthisman:
Bung:
hellonearthisman: I upgraded from SATA2 to SATA3 (pcie controller) and I saw a speed increase, 60MB/s to 80MB/S

The SATA3 drives perform faster than my SATA2 7500rpm drives did.

You would have seen the same increase even without the pciE card. SATA 2 would cope with 80MB/s.
What is the cache size comparison between your old drives and new drives?

Same Cache size. I will try one of the drives on the Sata2 to see if there is a difference.

Youve lost me? whats the same cache size (my two Sata2s) the sata 3has more than both together.

jaymz

1088 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 66

Reply # 496618 22-Jul-2011 11:48

kyhwana2: Sata 11!?
(Assume you actually mean SATA2, rather than you being from the future)

I thought the same thing! Or that the OP had forgot to put a "." between the numbers!

@Nate1
If you want to express numbers using letters (Roman Numerals) then the correct choice should be "II"

Nate1

50 posts

Geek

Reply # 496645 22-Jul-2011 12:52

jaymz:
kyhwana2: Sata 11!?
(Assume you actually mean SATA2, rather than you being from the future)

I thought the same thing! Or that the OP had forgot to put a "." between the numbers!

@Nate1
If you want to express numbers using letters (Roman Numerals) then the correct choice should be "II"

Seriously -I hope you guys find something better to do with your time.

geekiegeek

2114 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 369

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 496650 22-Jul-2011 13:00

Nate1:
jaymz:
kyhwana2: Sata 11!?
(Assume you actually mean SATA2, rather than you being from the future)

I thought the same thing! Or that the OP had forgot to put a "." between the numbers!

@Nate1
If you want to express numbers using letters (Roman Numerals) then the correct choice should be "II"

Seriously -I hope you guys find something better to do with your time.

I have to agree, I've seen this type of comment a few times lately and I for one think that the people who make these comments need to pull their heads in. Sorry if we are not all english writing experts like yourselves. I think it was perfectly clear what the OP was asking about and these comments are not at all required.

Is it not a form of trolling or even a personal attack?

My thoughts are my own and are in no way representative of my employer.

1 | 2