Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Another SATA III vs. SATA II Ques
- Thread starter AppleGoat
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh yes. Well, if it's just launching Apps, there's not a huge difference. Large Apps like Photoshop and games, Yes. But that really depends on the seek time of the drive... if seek time sucks, it doesn't matter SATA II or SATA III.
SATA III is best if you transfer large files a lot or access large files. SATA III doesn't necessarily mean faster speed. That's up to the seek and access time of the drive itself.
SATA II transfers at a max of 3 GB/s, SATA III transfers at a max of 6 GB/s. What comes up next is the support. SATA III support with Macs have been pretty spotty so far. Only the newer ones support it, and many people have had problems with them.
SATA II is much more reliable. Don't let that fact take the back seat to speed.
SATA III is best if you transfer large files a lot or access large files. SATA III doesn't necessarily mean faster speed. That's up to the seek and access time of the drive itself.
SATA II transfers at a max of 3 GB/s, SATA III transfers at a max of 6 GB/s. What comes up next is the support. SATA III support with Macs have been pretty spotty so far. Only the newer ones support it, and many people have had problems with them.
SATA II is much more reliable. Don't let that fact take the back seat to speed.
Last edited:
I never meant to have reliability take a backseat to performance. I have a Crucial M4 that has been sporadically beach balling on my MBP '11 13-inch. Most of the time, it performs marvelously and is lightning quick. Not sure if I should swap it out for another M4 or take a step back to a Samsung 470 (which many believe I should).
Haha, I'm having the same problem you're having. I still haven't been able to really figure out the problem, other than a reoccurring console message each time it unfreezes itself:
8/19/11 8:45:47.456 AM SystemUIServer: FCUserCanLogin [93] -- _FCMIGUserCanLogin failed with error 268451843.
With you Kingston drive? When did you get your MBP. I got mine shortly after the launch. I would imagine it was manufactured before the launch.
----------
I don't have TRIM enabler installed. I was thinking of activating it from Terminal but I know you can only do that in Lion.
If you are using a SATA III drive, this is exactly what you are doing. The 2011 MBP does have a SATA III connection but it is not officially supported by Apple. If you want the best compatibility, get a SATA II drive. Unless you are doing a lot of work with huge files you won't notice the difference.
Well, other '11 MBP owners have gotten their SATA III drives to work just fine. Do you eventually think it'll be supported by Apple -- in other words, will the very computer I'm rapping away right now, see SATA III compatibility in its life, or will only a new machine in the future bring with it compatibility?
The best answer that I could give you, IMO, is maybe. Apple will never advertise going the third party SSD route, and they will probably never truly support it (even though they don't even make their own SSD's that they put in their Airs and Pros). They just tell you that their configurations always "just work" and that's the best (and only) way to go.
SATA III is supported. It's just half a*s support. Windows 7 works just fine with my SATA III hard drive but not the OS X side. Nobody knows who's problem it is, but most likely Apple just needs to release some updates to address the problems (as well as the various bugs still around in 10.7.1). What sucks is that Apple hasn't even addressed it as an issue, so we don't officially know what it is. The manufacturers release the SSD's knowing that in theory it should work. It's up to the software and firmware to make it work right.
I don't know about launching apps. But the benchmarks are almost shocking 
My experience is, that after using these high end SSDs for a while you start to notice the difference if you switch back and forth. For instance, I just switched from using a Patriot inferno 240GB (sandforce) SATA 2 back to a Vertex 3 240GB SATA 3. The difference is very noticable.
Mind you, the Patriot is a very fast SATA 2 drive. But the Vertex is much faster in common tasks.
My experience is, that after using these high end SSDs for a while you start to notice the difference if you switch back and forth. For instance, I just switched from using a Patriot inferno 240GB (sandforce) SATA 2 back to a Vertex 3 240GB SATA 3. The difference is very noticable.
Mind you, the Patriot is a very fast SATA 2 drive. But the Vertex is much faster in common tasks.
Last edited:
I don't know about launching apps. But the benchmarks are almost shocking
My experience is, that after using these high end SSDs for a while you start to notice the difference if you switch back and forth. For instance, I just switched from using a Patriot inferno 240GB (sandforce) SATA 2 back to a Vertex 3 240GB SATA 3. The difference is very noticable.
Mind you, the Patriot is a very fast SATA 2 drive. But the Vertex is much faster in common tasks.
I can definitely relate to this. When I was troubleshooting my SSD problems, I switched back to the original stock drive for my MBP and man, I got so frustrated with the slow speed I felt like hitting the power button.
I got SSD STD's.
This all comes down to personal preference.
SATA II you get much better stability and compatibility, not as high transfer rates as SATA III, but it almost means absolutely nothing to the common user/speed enthusiast.
SATA III you get the highest transfer rates. Best for those often transferring large files back and forth and working with huge files.
Speed (read/write speed) has absolutely nothing to do with II/III. A SATA II drive can easily beat a SATA III drive if the read/write speed is higher. This is probably the most important thing you need to find out when SSD shopping.
If your computer doesn't support SATA III and you get a SATA III drive, it will work, but you just paid for a highly praised SATA II drive essentially.
The battle between SATA II and SATA III is all about TRANSFER SPEED, not speed.
Putting it bluntly, bang for your buck, SATA II. Bang. Hand over some bucks.
Last edited:
I don't think you will see an official SATA III spec from Apple with the current machine. Just my opinion.
I should clarify, I don't think Apple will EVER condone/support users replacing their own SSD drives as far as them helping you make it work. What I am talking about is when you go the specs page at Apple for a machine it will list the SATA connection as SATA III, and that is not currently happening.
I know many users have managed to get SATA III drives working, but the forums are also full of people struggling with them. If you want to increase the odds of just popping in a drive and having it work, I am suggesting a SATA II SSD.
Well, on the Serial ATA page in System Profiler, it says the link speed is 6 gigabit. I'm just wondering if future firmware releases and subsequent OS X updates will right my drive. Seems like my best bet is either swapping it out for another M4, or just going down the problem-free road and getting a Samsung 470.
----------
I don't know about launching apps. But the benchmarks are almost shocking
My experience is, that after using these high end SSDs for a while you start to notice the difference if you switch back and forth. For instance, I just switched from using a Patriot inferno 240GB (sandforce) SATA 2 back to a Vertex 3 240GB SATA 3. The difference is very noticable.
Mind you, the Patriot is a very fast SATA 2 drive. But the Vertex is much faster in common tasks.
Specifically how does it feel much faster? Everyone I speak to says that won't notice the difference between the SATA II and SATA III drives in common use.
That is not what I am talking about. I mean if you go to this page at Apple.com and look at the specs.
It's the read and write speeds of the drives. They are different. It just happens to be that the SATA III one has faster specs.
It's a huge difference. Check these sites:
Patriot: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220509
Vertex: http://www.amazon.com/OCZ-Technology-Vertex-2-5-Inch-VTX3-25SAT3-240G/dp/B004QJM1HG
The Vertex can go above 500 Mb/s read/write speed, the Patriot only goes up to 280 MB/s read/write speed. That's an almost 2x difference. If the specs were reversed, the SATA II would be faster (just pointing out the fact again that SATA III does not necessarily mean a faster drive).
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I highly recommend Samsung 470. It really is not a step back, as you will not be spending your precious time opening up your mac, restoring your backup. I've been using 470 256GB for a month on my 2011 MBP. It's been rock solid. It's always ready to go. I haven't seen a single beach ball. Another consideration is battery life. I am getting about 9 hours average from boot up, and can easily last a whole day with some heavy processing thrown in here and there.
You may cut a few milliseconds here and there, or a few seconds doing a larger sequential copy, but all the saved time will be lost if you have to RMA your SSD even once. Not that Samsung would never fail, but I've heard very few people complain about this drive, and there is a reason why Apple is using their drive and controller for the latest laptops.
You may cut a few milliseconds here and there, or a few seconds doing a larger sequential copy, but all the saved time will be lost if you have to RMA your SSD even once. Not that Samsung would never fail, but I've heard very few people complain about this drive, and there is a reason why Apple is using their drive and controller for the latest laptops.
Yeah, according to the numbers there appears to be a profound difference, but practically everyone here insists they cannot see a difference in normal usage.
----------
Yeah, I'm probably gonna put in an order for a Samsung 470 tonight.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
... I think you misunderstand, we are saying that there is no difference of normal usage in the case of SATA II vs. SATA III, not between those two SSD's. Those are two completely different SSD's.
If you had two of the same exact SSD's, with the same exact read/write specs, EXCEPT that one is SATA II and one SATA III, you will not notice the difference in speed under normal usage. You WILL notice a difference in transferring large files and using large programs, but even that will be pretty much unnoticed unless you CONSTANTLY do so.
... I think you misunderstand, we are saying that there is no difference of normal usage in the case of SATA II vs. SATA III, not between those two SSD's. Those are two completely different SSD's.
If you had two of the same exact SSD's, with the same exact read/write specs, EXCEPT that one is SATA II and one SATA III, you will not notice the difference in speed under normal usage. You WILL notice a difference in transferring large files and using large programs, but even that will be pretty much unnoticed unless you CONSTANTLY do so.
Really, my understanding was that the latest SATA III offerings from OCZ/OWC specifically (with the great read/write times) were not noticeably better than their SATA II counterparts under normal usage. At least that seems to be a prevailing observation on the forum. These mind-blowing SATA III drive are really only faster in benchmarks. You beg to differ? So with regards to the M4 and the 470, those large 150 meg files I work with in Photoshop would be better handled by the M4, or I won't notice much of a difference?
On a side note, my M4, after being off for the night, has not beach balled at all today (well not yet). Interestingly, it performs problem-free when I'm on the verge of ousting it for another drive. Perhaps I should pull up the Samsung 470 Newegg page more often.
Last edited:
Update: Late last night, I was set to pull the trigger on the Samsung 470. However, fortunately I looked at the return policy on the M4, and Newegg would only grant exchanges or store credit on my purchase, no refund. I just called Newegg and apparently, if I were to exchange the M4 for a Samsung 470, I would be subject to a 32 dollar re-stocking fee and no advanced shipping for the replacement item -- which means, I would have to resort to the slow stock HD and open up the case once more than I would have liked. Thus, I opted for a new M4. Newegg will advance ship it and I won't have to pay any sort of restocking fee. I was really hoping to get the 470, wish I had gone with it a few weeks ago. Although many have had good success with the M4, hopefully the next one I get is not semi-defective.