PCI SSD vs SATA 3

[MrRiplEy[H]]

You'll be waiting awhile.   He's done giving discounts and writing in this section of the Forum.

Ohh, so he thinks he lost his credibility because of a couple posts? Shame. He could just have corrected his title or admit the bad comparison and this thread would have been 2 pages shorter.

[Masherbrum]

HE lost nothing, the Community did.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

HE lost nothing, the Community did.

So He was buried and on which day shall he be resurrected?

I smell a cult!

Seriously, all he needed to do was correct one line of his post instead of insisting on it. It was misleading and so was the other SATA3 reference. Wouldn't you prefer your advisors to stick to real world results and not marketing bs?

[Dragon]

Seriously, all he needed to do was correct one line of his post instead of insisting on it. It was misleading and so was the other SATA3 reference. Wouldn't you prefer your advisors to stick to real world results and not marketing bs?

I can't believe that you are still stuck on this.  It was a simple comparison of one storage device to another.  NOTHING MORE.

While reading the Sandy Bridge CPU review, they compared the on-chip video capabilities to an add-on VC.  Did you write them and tell them that they are misleading their readers because the technology isn't the same and it's an unfair comparison?  Did you let them know how YOU would have preferred them to word it?  I didn't think so. 

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I can't believe that you are still stuck on this.  It was a simple comparison of one storage device to another.  NOTHING MORE.

While reading the Sandy Bridge CPU review, they compared the on-chip video capabilities to an add-on VC.  Did you write them and tell them that they are misleading their readers because the technology isn't the same and it's an unfair comparison?  Did you let them know how YOU would have preferred them to word it?  I didn't think so.  

As mentioned earlier you should refrain from commenting about issues that you clearly know nothing of. Professional tech reviewers make comparisons correctly and do not make cardinal mistakes like mention interfaces in comparison title without having the comparison anything to do with the said interfaces. Or claim that users made a mistake choosing SATA2 instead of SATA3 on a device that can run at or near full speed using SATA 1.0!

As said multiple times, I mentioned the title was misleading. TD claimed the title was correct. Well it wasn't - and I really don't see any other reason for sticking to it but an attempt to mislead someone or perhaps fear of losing credibility. Same thing with the SATA2 vs SATA3 claim later. I gave TD every chance to back his claims up with a simple review or a benchmark. The trouble is that the benchmarks show MY point as true not vice versa. Anything I said could have been easily refuted if it was not correct.

So where are we at? I can verify every claim that I make. I very rarely if ever claim anything without some sort of assurance that I know what I talk about. Then there's someone who has a financial interest and self proclaimed expert who has not been able (or willing) to back his claims up with a neutral and trustworthy source.

I have no problem with TD selling his stuff to the community. But when I see a post with misleading or as it seems, intentionally misleading information, should I not bring it up front? When Best Buy claims their 200 dollar box is the best computer evar in their ad should we just take it for face value and go shopping?

From what I see TD has made an excellent track record with satisfied customers if we count out the one very visible case some time back. This makes me even more surprised that he should react in this way the first moment someone asks him to clarify or rectify something he writes here.

[Masherbrum]

Chef, it's not worth it bro.

[TilDeath]

In reply to your posts here MrRiply.  I will address them with independent (recognized) opinions which differ from yours and are aligned with my statements and findings.

So lets start here with the difference between SATA 2 and SATA 3.  No SATA drives use the whole amount of bandwidth available, this we agree upon. But neither do any processors use the whole amount of bandwidth available on a motherboard.  Why not stick with a 1GHz processor since it will not flood the available bandwidth, why, because the 2GHz is faster but also does not flood the available bandwidth nor does a Overclocked 6GHz.  Newer technology may not fully use whats available, but it is still faster than what it is replacing.  I am sure you are not using an IDE interface hard drive, if not how come?  It too does not fill the available bandwidth but I am sure you are using a SATA II.

Same thing with the SATA2 vs SATA3 claim later. I gave TD every chance to back his claims up with a simple review or a benchmark. The trouble is that the benchmarks show MY point as true not vice versa. Anything I said could have been easily refuted if it was not correct.

But SATA 3 is faster in real world applications hands down. Here is one link showing the average's of a SATA 2 and a SATA 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk9oGRAxo6U  Now before you get all out of shape saying... blah blah blah about benchmark utilities, I will address another one of your statements saying that benchmark programs are not real world examples.   Well here is an article from Maximum PC and I quote;

"To casual observers, PC builders who fixate on benchmarks are geeks unable to see the forest from the trees. “Why,” they ask, “can’t you just enjoy your new computer and let it be?” Our answer: the difference between a person who cares about benchmarking and one who doesn’t is how much that person values their free time.

Case in point, we recently did something as simple as download two large zip files at the end of the work day. Instead of strolling out at 6 p.m., we ended up waiting 15 minutes for the files to be decompressed on our work-issued PC. To care about benchmark is to care about performance. And to care about performance is to care about having more free time on your hand." SOURCE  http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/how_properly_benchmark_your_pc

You Sir consistently knock Benchmarking software.  I would hope a magazine who's business also is the computer and component field have a clue what they are talking about.  Benchmarking software does use a lot of real world examples to actually show what you might expect (3D Mark for one as well as ATTO which I did my comparison with here)

Should I go on to show your inaccuracy's?  I looked back in these forums, I had to go back close to three years to find a thread that you had started.  It was about Virtual Drivers.  How many players do you think actually are using virtual machines to play?  No very many would be my guess.  You further stated I was inaccurate in my comparison, document to me where I am inaccurate.  I can list 4 sources (professional reviews) showing the same findings as I with the Revo2 and SATA3 or if you prefer the Revo3 and SATA based SSD drives.

No matter how you look at it SATA is faster then IDE, SATA 2 is Faster then SATA, SATA 3 is faster then SATA 2, SSD is faster then SATA 3 and PCI/PCIe SSD is the fastest of whats mentioned here.  Please show me where I am wrong in this matter specifically that SATA 2 and SATA 3 run at the same speeds (since you mentioned this several times):

Serial ATA International Organization (The people joined to set the common perimeters, I guess they are wrong also)
http://www.serialata.org/

Whos members include
http://www.serialata.org/membership/member_listings_alpha.asp

Maybe you can tell them not to do further development of SATA ? until they can fill the current available bandwidth.

Here is what Tom's Hardware has to say about SATA II vs SATA 3 from Tom's Hardware
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Seagate-AMD-SATA3-Standard,7223.html

This post as I have said all along was my findings of two technologies, both available to the consumers.  Both being fairly new to the market but having a great difference in performance.

You have made insults and statements that are unfounded and incorrect about the technology (claiming media hype) and me personally.  I believe I have proved you wrong in your statements with my links from independent sources.

I send out several specked systems per month to people whom said they are not planning on making a purchase from me.  Purchase and send parts to people from these boards at cost plus shipping without profit, only to support the community (where is my commercial interest).  Spend hours per month on the phone with guys who build their own or purchased somewhere else and ask me for assistance or guidance (again without cost to them, commercial interest?), research parts for guys here looking to upgrade and want a recommendation from the boards (again where is my commercial interest).  Look over guys who posted "what do you think of this build" and make corrections where they could do better (your reference to SATA 2 rather then my suggestion of SATA 3 which costs the same and is faster).  If I had a real commercial interest from this forum, then I would not be selling the systems I do with the components I use, I would use the same as most other builders (the cheapest they can get).

You also stated that I lost credibility, no I don't feel that way at all, I know whats faster and whats not.  I am disappointed in the way that the forums have turned into a group of nitpickers.  I have gained something from this thread and that is more time for myself and family and business.

[Masherbrum]

Well said TD! 

[Reschke]

TD

Thanks for all your help over the last couple of years and I for one will be calling you in a couple of months for my next build.

[guncrasher]

   TD.


SEMP

[Dragon]

And this right here was the whole purpose of the thread and how I interpreted it:

From TD:
This post as I have said all along was my findings of two technologies, both available to the consumers.  Both being fairly new to the market but having a great difference in performance.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

First of all: Nobody is claiming SATA interface doesn't need developing OR that SATA3 is not faster than SATA2. I have never said anything such. The trouble here seems to be that you for a reason or the other cannot fathom that it is totally misleading to say someone made a mistake choosing sata2 interface on a hdd that is perfectly happy running on said interface. Choosing SATA2 for a HDD is perfectly adequate because a HDD cannot come close to saturating even sata2 bandwith.

This discussion is a total deja-vu with the recent PCI-E 1.0 vs 2.0 debate not so long ago lol! Then too people didn't understand that a size S man doesn't need XL pants to fit in them - even if there are people who need XXXL size.

I'll quote a quote from the 'professional home made youtube review' link you posted:

thats not a fair comparison, the 500gb is slower then the 640gb even when they are both sata 2, compare a 640gb sata 2 with a 640gb sata 3.

This comparison is pointless.

And this is what it boils down to. You consistently present erroneus information for reasons unknown to me. Benchmarks that are done with same size WD harddrive show 0.5% performance difference with cache burst speed excluded (pointless in real life scenario). You CONTINUE to make apples to oranges comparisons, the two harddrives ARE NOT COMPARABLE IN SPEED AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INTERFACE!

This comparison has been made with harddrives with an equal capacity and you'll be blown away by the (lack of) speed difference. http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/seagate_2tb/4.htm

Notice that the two drives are the top of the line in capacity (and therefore platter density/output speed) and yet SATA2 has absolutely no trouble to handle the data. Only fastest of the SSD drives approach the limits of SATA2. On a HDD it's meaningless.

You claim that ford is faster than chevrolet, then post a link comparing a ford labeled top fuel drag racer to a basic model chevrolet Kalos. Yay look how much faster a FORD is! I mean that chevrolet tipped over from the FORD's exhaust!  

A simplier person would have thought the comparison was about a top fuel drag racer against a regular family car and absolutely nothing to do with the makes.

I'm really disappointed to you TD. I thought you really knew your stuff but by pressing this case you're just eroding the last remains of your credibility (at least on the eyes of anyone who understands what we even speak of here).

[MrRiplEy[H]]

No matter how you look at it SATA is faster then IDE, SATA 2 is Faster then SATA, SATA 3 is faster then SATA 2, SSD is faster then SATA 3 and PCI/PCIe SSD is the fastest of whats mentioned here.  Please show me where I am wrong in this matter specifically that SATA 2 and SATA 3 run at the same speeds (since you mentioned this several times):

Ok, now I'm beginning to think it's a mild case of dyslexia or something. I'm referring to this thing again: "SSD is faster then SATA3".

This is what baffled me earlier and it seems you really do think SATA3 is synonymous for a HDD running on SATA3?

You do realize that SSD is a storage technology and SATA3 is an interface that can run SSD, HDD, FDD or any given form of storage? You can have a RAID set of multiple SSD's on SATA3 that will exceed the speed of the Revo2.

I was not even trying to claim the Revo2 wasn't faster than a single HDD on any form of SATA that's stupendously obvious. I was saying you cannot 'compare' PCI-E SSD vs SATA3. You just can't say SSD vs SATA because you talk about two entirely different things. The other is a storage technology, the other is an interface.

[TilDeath]

I am not sure if you do not under stand English or not or that you feel you have to lie to try and prove your right.  Here is what you purposefully quoted from the video.  

I'll quote a quote from the 'professional home made youtube review' link you posted:
Quote
thats not a fair comparison, the 500gb is slower then the 640gb even when they are both sata 2, compare a 640gb sata 2 with a 640gb sata 3.

This comparison is pointless.

Here is all the text from the video, I invite anyone to please tell me the time line where the video maker states this is not a fair comparison.  Open the video folks and read along with the same words typed here (follow the bouncing ball)

VIDEO VERBIAGE IN TEXT

QUOTE
Hey guys today's video is about hard drive interface, ok, ah what you can see here is its my SATA2 Western Digital Black Edition Hard Drive 500 gigabyte 32 meg of cache.  Its connected to SATA2 controller on my P55 motherboard from gigabyte ok and I just finished benchmarking this hard drive using HD Tune utility as you can see we have minimum 43 megabytes per second, maximum of 94.5 an average of 75.1 you also get the access time, burst rate and CPU usage ok so what I'm gonna do today, I'm gonna take new hard drive here, and this is the SATA3 also Black Edition hard drive from Western Digital, the difference between this drive and this drive, is, the capacity is a little bit higher ok and ah they doubled the ah cache here you have 64 megabytes of cache on this drive, and also its capable to run as SATA3 interface. So what I'm gonna do now I'm gonna connect this baby to my case and to my motherboard to SATA3 controller and I'm gonna run exactly the same benchmark to see if do we really have any performance difference ok jumping from SATA2 to SATA3 so stay with me I will run the benchmark.

Ok so the drive its here in my ah hard drive cage, it's connected umm on the back to SATA3 controller and ah lets benchmark it guys.  Ok so we have the results here for the HD Tune 2.55 benchmark tool and we have minimum of 82.3, maximum of 136.9 and average of 114 and half megabytes per second and access time of 11.5 milliseconds so basically if you want to jump to SATA3 go for it, it's a good upgrade.  Thank you very much for watching guys.
END QUOTE

You have been caught you in a blatant lie misleading the community by trying to make yourself look good for what ever reason.  I feel no need to prove anything else you have stated because you resort to untruths to make your point. You mentioned credibility, I believe mine is still in tack, but yours is the one that should be in question here.

TD

MODIFY:
By the way, read your whole Overclockers review.  I will quote it.  "Seagate has introduced the world's first and only hard drive that supports the SATA 6Gb/s standard with the release of the Barracuda XT 2TB drive."  This article is well over a year old, get with the program things have changed, there are hundreds of SATA 6Gb/s drives available.  I post my findings and seems like everyone else's but yours, you find obscure and obsolete information

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I am not sure if you do not under stand English or not or that you feel you have to lie to try and prove your right.  Here is what you purposefully quoted from the video.  
Here is all the text from the video, I invite anyone to please tell me the time line where the video maker states this is not a fair comparison.  Open the video folks and read along with the same words typed here (follow the bouncing ball)

ROFLOL! The video maker is a no-name noob who is comparing apples to oranges and you're not being able to see it. Several people who commented the video you linked saw the same exact thing I'm trying to explain to you over and over.

thats not a fair comparison, the 500gb is slower then the 640gb even when they are both sata 2, compare a 640gb sata 2 with a 640gb sata 3.

This comparison is pointless.

QFT. This comparison, though we appreciate your efforts, is pointless.

If you wanted to make a fair comparison, then use the same hard drive (640GB Black Sata 6Gb/s) on the Sata 3Gb/s port. Benchmark that. Then put it on the Sata 6gb/s port. Benchmark that.

The differences, ESPECIALLY on a platter drive is very very minimal on Sata 3Gb/s vs 6Gb/s. It may make a difference on your burst speeds, but sequential read will be very close.

I tried using my hd sata 2 on sata 3 port and i get almost same benchmark as what you did on sata 3...

1. I have 2x WD1002FAEX 1 GB in RAID0 and they work faster in SATAII mode then SATAIII.

2. Major problem - using SATAIII your PCI-E works only at x8 mode.

ad nauseam

MODIFY:
By the way, read your whole Overclockers review.  I will quote it.  "Seagate has introduced the world's first and only hard drive that supports the SATA 6Gb/s standard with the release of the Barracuda XT 2TB drive."  This article is well over a year old, get with the program things have changed, there are hundreds of SATA 6Gb/s drives available.  I post my findings and seems like everyone else's but yours, you find obscure and obsolete information

It does not change the technical FACT that a HDD cannot produce enough data to fill even 60% of available bandwith of SATA2. It has no need for a faster interface. The _drive_ is the limitation not the interface. Oh Lord.

Here's 700mb/s performance on SATA2 oh noes.. http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/07/06/ssd_raid_scaling_under_windows_7/3

Here's 2Gb/s performance on SATA2 oh gawd! Wasn't your Revo2 merely 800+Mb? http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/09/24-samsung-ssds-get-strung-together-for-supercomputer-fun/

How can it be? SATA2 is slooooowwww.

Believe it...