SSD on DDR2

[SirWendall]

Would having a SSD in a DDR2 rig help? It only supports up to 3GB/s on the motherboard

[TheEpicDuck]

2 minutes ago, GamerMan said:

Would having a SSD in a DDR2 rig help? It only supports up to 3GB/s on the motherboard

Yeah, when i used it in my q6600 machine it was like riding a very comfotable camel on a chilly afternoon.

[Arty]

Using an SSD on ANY rig will help.

[pwn_intended]

5 minutes ago, GamerMan said:

Would having a SSD in a DDR2 rig help? It only supports up to 3GB/s on the motherboard

DDR2 is an old memory standard, SSD is for data storage. Please provide more info on the system because the 2 are not comparable...

 

But yes, an SSD always makes thing better

[Morgan MLGman]

6 minutes ago, GamerMan said:

Would having a SSD in a DDR2 rig help? It only supports up to 3GB/s on the motherboard

Yep, the SSD will be bottlenecked by the SATA 2 (3GB/s = 300MB/s) bandwidth, but it will still be almost 3x faster than a regular HDD cause those oscillate around 110MB/s when compared to 300MB/s with an SSD (on such bandwidth).

[LawrenceBarnes2013]

3 minutes ago, Arty said:

Using an SSD on ANY rig will help.

But hold on guys i though SSDs peaked with a 6Gb/s port, 3Gb/s is HDD Speed, right ?

[TheEpicDuck]

16 minutes ago, LawrenceBarnes2013 said:

But hold on guys i though SSDs peaked with a 6Gb/s port, 3Gb/s is HDD Speed, right ?

A typical 7200 rpm hdd wil have 80 to 160 MB/s r/w

3 Gigabits/s is 375 MB/s witch is much faster. so it would help.

 

[Morgan MLGman]

4 minutes ago, LawrenceBarnes2013 said:

But hold on guys i though SSDs peaked with a 6Gb/s port, 3Gb/s is HDD Speed, right ?

Regular SSDs are around equal to the SATA 3 speed which is 6GB/s (600MB/s of transfer), SATA 2 is half of that, meaning it's 3GB/s (300MB/s of transfer). Since good SSDs easily get 550MB/s+ of R/W, 300MB/s will bottleneck them quite a bit but it also will increase the overall system performance since it's almost 3x what you get with a HDD (as mentioned above, from 80 to 160mb R/W, a regular WD Blue/ Seagate Barracuda get from 100 to 120MB/s)

[TheEpicDuck]

1 minute ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Regular SSDs are around equal to the SATA 3 speed which is 6GB/s (600MB/s of transfer), SATA 2 is half of that, meaning it's 3GB/s (300MB/s of transfer). Since good SSDs easily get 550MB/s+ of R/W, 300MB/s will bottleneck them quite a bit but it also will increase the overall system performance since it's almost 3x what you get with a HDD (as mentioned above, from 80 to 160mb R/W, a regular WD Blue/ Seagate Barracuda get from 100 to 120MB/s)

I don't get you

[Morgan MLGman]

2 minutes ago, TheEpicDuck said:

I don't get you

Which part did you not understand? It's pretty clear for me, though for someone who doesn't understand how those interfaces work it might be confusing, I'll elaborate if you point out what you "don't get" exactly

[TheEpicDuck]

I don't get why you elaborate with the useless information

[Jwalbrecht2000]

4 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Regular SSDs are around equal to the SATA 3 speed which is 6GB/s (600MB/s of transfer), SATA 2 is half of that, meaning it's 3GB/s (300MB/s of transfer). Since good SSDs easily get 550MB/s+ of R/W, 300MB/s will bottleneck them quite a bit but it also will increase the overall system performance since it's almost 3x what you get with a HDD (as mentioned above, from 80 to 160mb R/W, a regular WD Blue/ Seagate Barracuda get from 100 to 120MB/s)

The SATA 3 standard is 6 Gb/s, not 6 GB/s. 6 Gb/s equates to 750 MB/s, and 3 Gb/s equals 375 MB/s.

 

Even if the standard were 6GB/s, that would equal 6,000 MB/s, not 600.

[Arty]

16 minutes ago, LawrenceBarnes2013 said:

But hold on guys i though SSDs peaked with a 6Gb/s port, 3Gb/s is HDD Speed, right ?

hdd is 80-100MB/s a regular ssd is up to  600MB/S

SSD>HDD

[Morgan MLGman]

4 minutes ago, Jwalbrecht2000 said:

The SATA 3 standard is 6 Gb/s, not 6 GB/s. 6 Gb/s equates to 750 MB/s, and 3 Gb/s equals 375 MB/s.

 

Even if the standard were 6GB/s, that would equal 6,000 MB/s, not 600.

Gigabit, of course, this is what I meant.

 

6Gb/s is roughly around 600MB/s in the real world, 3Gb/s is roughly around 300MB/s (I'm not talking theoretical speeds cause those don't happen I work in IT, more precisely in storage and security and this is a common approximation of those interfaces in terms of speed)

 

8 minutes ago, TheEpicDuck said:

I don't get why you elaborate with the useless information

Oh, if tech knowledge is useless to you then you're on the wrong forum mate. You learn every day. Also, quote people when you wanted them to see your response.

[Jwalbrecht2000]

2 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Gigabit, of course, this is what I meant.

 

6Gb/s is roughly around 600MB/s in the real world, 3Gb/s is roughly around 300MB/s (I'm not talking theoretical speeds cause those don't happen I work in IT, more precisely in storage and security and this is a common approximation of those interfaces in terms of speed)

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification.

[TheEpicDuck]

I never said that tech knowledge is useless i said the information you posted is useless to the question.

[Jwalbrecht2000]

Just now, TheEpicDuck said:

I never said that tech knowledge is useless i said the information you posted is useless

It's really not though, it's super relevant to the conversation as OP asked if adding an SSD would be effective; this is merely quantitative data supporting @Morgan MLGman's answer.

[TheEpicDuck]

2 minutes ago, Jwalbrecht2000 said:

It's really not though, it's super relevant to the conversation as OP asked if adding an SSD would be effective; this is merely quantitative data supporting @Morgan MLGman's answer.

if you read the awnsers before you can clearly see that the info is there. he posted a longer version of the same. anyway i give up. can't win them all

[Morgan MLGman]

6 minutes ago, Jwalbrecht2000 said:

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification.

I'm glad you pointed out that I made a mistake, you're 100% correct that GB/s and Gb/s are different units I meant it correct in my head, just wrote it the wrong way!

 

6 minutes ago, TheEpicDuck said:

I never said that tech knowledge is useless i said the information you posted is useless

 

3 minutes ago, TheEpicDuck said:

if you read the awnsers before you can clearly see that the info is there. he posted a longer version of the same.

I gave a more in-depth answer to the topic for OP to see how much of SSD's speed he's essentially losing with a SATA 2-interface compatible motherboard and why it happens... Though you can ignore my answer if you choose, it's not like it was directed to you anyway...

[mariushm]

You don't get a SSD for raw transfer speeds, because in real world it's very rare you'll be in such a rush to copy files at more than 300 MB/s to the SSD or from SSD to something.

 

So yeah, while in theory the SSD won't read and write at it's maximum speed of over 300 MB/s because it's limited by the sata controller being only able to "talk" to the SSD with SATA2 version, it won't affect you in any way.

 

What helps is the much smaller latency when accessing files, with a regular hdd it may take up to 10ms to start reading a file, while with a SSD it takes less than a ms to start reading data from flash memory cells of the SSD. A SSD is also able to access multiple files at the same time much better than regular hard drives.

A SSD would make the operating system load much faster and make applications feel more responsive.  The executables and DLL files of applications would be read from SSD much faster and kept in RAM by the operating system afterwards. DDR2 is quite fast, the operating system can read and write to DDR2 at more than 10 GB/s (depending on configuration and freqency... let's say 10 GB/s for dual channel, 800 Mhz or higher)

 

So yeah, a decent SSD would increase the performance of a computer, even if it's so old as to still use DDR2.

[H0R53]

My computer has 6Gb of DDR2. I have a Sandisk SSD from Best Buy and I boot in less than 15 seconds. There is a very noticeable performance difference, even when using a Core 2 Duo instead of my 771 Xeon. Even with a weaker processor like the Pentium E5400 I noticed a HUGE difference in boot, login, program launch, and shutdown times. Even with 2 7200RPM drives in RAID the difference is huge. I don't even have to wait to launch programs, as soon as I log in I can open Explorer or Google Chrome without any delay. I'm sure even lower end SSDS will still be better. Transfer rate (3.0GB/s) doesn't matter as much as access time.

[SirWendall]

I'm getting a Asus P5Q soon and I have a q9300. I was gonna OC it ??