Take the 2-minute tour ×
Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

So I know a SATA3 handles a maximum speed of about 750MB. But when comparing this HDD and this SSD, what would be the difference in terms of read/write speed. Won't they both be using the SATA3 busing and having a maximum speed of 750MB? If I wanted to choose a drive that gives me the best read/write speed, which one should I go for, or are they both relatively the same?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by nerdwaller, oKtosiTe, Dave, Tog, TFM Mar 26 '13 at 17:45

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

    
750 MB/sec seems awfully high for SATA III. Physical signally is only 6 Gbit/sec. And 6000/8=750. But that assumes no overhead and perfect conditions. In praxis you need to divide between and and 11, which results in a max transfer rate of 550-600 MB/sec. -- As a confirmed expemple, take Intels ICH chipset with SATA-II (3.0Gbit/sec) which won almost every benchmark with speeds up to 270 MB/sec. SATA-III's bus speed is to twice that. –  Hennes Mar 26 '13 at 7:20

2 Answers 2

up vote 1 down vote accepted

The SSD is much faster. The HDD has 10000rpm but is still slower.

// Edit. Add content of my comment to the answer:

Because a HDD is limited by it platters and spindle. Moving the head to the right position takes some time. SSDs don't have this. SSD can be read much faster because it doesn't have an mechanic parts. The data are read from Flash modules. Here is a link for you:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/SSD-versus-HDD-in-comparison.18750.0.html

share|improve this answer
    
I figured but why doesn't the HDD list it's read/write speed like the SSD does? Do you have any benchmarks or anything I could look at, I've been trying to find some conclusive proof to persuade me. –  Richard Mar 26 '13 at 5:38
    
Because a HDD is limited by it platters and spindle. Moving the head to the right position takes some time. SSDs don't have this. SSD can be read much faster because it doesn't have an mechanic parts. The data are read from Flash modules. Here is a link for you: notebookcheck.net/SSD-versus-HDD-in-comparison.18750.0.html –  magicandre1981 Mar 26 '13 at 5:44
    
ah i didn't think about the latency caused by the moving parts in HDD, that makes much more sense. And that's the benchmark I was look for, thank you –  Richard Mar 26 '13 at 5:46

Yes, but you are not comparing apples to apples. You are only looking at the BUS and the read/write speed; however, you are not accounting for latencies, which are always much lower in an SSD (basically any SSD on the market for SATA3).

HDD's didn't used to share the read/write often because the bigger issue then was how fast the platters could spin (4800, 5400, 7200, 10000) which was a direct relationship to the latencies and seek times (more-or-less).

Anyway, the Velociraptor typically maxes around 115 in the last tests I saw.

I'd suggest reading the article on Wikipedia about the performace characteristics of hard drives.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.