SSD on SATA I?

[vj8usa]

I've been considering getting an SSD for my laptop to make it a little "snappier," but apparently it's capped to SATA I speeds of 1.5gbps (Thinkpad T61). Would it still be a worthwhile upgrade, or would I be missing out on a lot?

From what I can gather, the main benefit to an SSD for normal use is the boost in random read speed and the lower latency, which wouldn't be affected at all by the SATA I speed limitations.

 

[F1shF4t]

Your sequential read/write speeds will be capped by sata 1 speeds (so about 130 -140MB/s) but you'll still get full benefit of random read/write speeds and low latency of the ssd.

I'd still get the ssd, it should be a night and day difference compared to the slow 2.5" laptop hdds.

 

[veri745]

Yeah, depending on how expensive of an SSD you get, your sequential speeds to take a small hit (but still be way faster than a laptop spindle HDD)

Just don't spend the money on an SSD that gets 200+ MB/s read/write

 

[Emulex]

no NCQ kills ssd performance like pata. ssd's have magic overlapped i/o that can occur that is not really physically possible on most single drives (that new dual actuator WD might change that).

NCQ is very important with threaded multi-core systems.

 

[Voo]

no NCQ kills ssd performance like pata. ssd's have magic overlapped i/o that can occur that is not really physically possible on most single drives (that new dual actuator WD might change that).

NCQ is very important with threaded multi-core systems.

I'm rather sure you don't need SATA2 for NCQ, so that won't be a problem. Also while NCQ is useful in heavy multi-threading scenarios, a laptop isn't probably the best example for that behavior, so even in that case he would probably notice the difference mostly in benchmarks..


F1shF4t summarized it perfectly: A hit in sequential read/write (if you're not using a Intel drive), which isn't the reason to get a SSD in the first place so no big problem.

 

[vj8usa]

I'm pretty sure I have NCQ support on my laptop. It's weird - I technically have SATA II (intel 965 chipset, forgot the name of the storage manager but it has an 8 in it), but it's BIOS limited to SATA I speeds. There's a bit of an uproar over the whole deal in the Lenovo forums, but Lenovo doesn't see this as a problem and has no plans to enable the full 3.0Gbps bandwidth.

Thanks for all the responses - I'm starting to regret not getting the $130 Agility drive when it was on sale at the egg earlier.

 

[Glenn]

As stated earlier, disk access is where you will notice a huge difference. Particularly against a notebook drive, so even though you can't transfer faster than 150 you would likely not notice much difference in day to day use even if you did have sata 2. The real wow factor everyone gets excited about after experiencing their first SSD, is nearly all because of the disk access speeds.

 

[Silenus]

I have the same, a Thinkpad T61e. Yes I do think it's ridiculous that it's Sata II capable but not "enabled." But I've gotten over that and I put an Intel X25-M 80GB in it anyway. Even running at SATA 1 speeds you cannot imagine the difference it makes over the original hard drive. It's a completely different machine.

 

[Emulex]

think about no ncq - if you can dispatch a few commands (read,write,read) and it can do all 3 at the same time - that is hot.

if you have to wait for 1 to complete to issue the next - that would suck.

 

[veri745]

think about no ncq - if you can dispatch a few commands (read,write,read) and it can do all 3 at the same time - that is hot.

if you have to wait for 1 to complete to issue the next - that would suck.

NCQ doesn't allow a HDD to do multiple things at the same time, it just allows the HDD to execute those commands in an optimized order to reduce total latency.

It's really not that big of a performance gain unless you're doing a ton of disk access; it's by far the most helpful in server scenarios. That, plus as already stated, SATA I doesn't disable NCQ.

 

[Emulex]

yeh it might only help with people with multi-core cpu's. but some of us have those

 

[frrrosty]

I have had great success with my ocz vertex-2 60GB SSD with ASUS P4P800-E motherboard, P4 3.4, fantastic speeds. I did have an issue installing XP, I assume because of SATA-I compatibility issues. I created a partition with an offset of 64, ran the XP Install CD, it would find the SSD drive and report that its "Copying files", then reboot automatically to continue the install. Well, when it rebooted, the install started from the beginning every time.
I reconnected my old OS/HDD with the SSD as a data drive, and found that no files had been copied. So, I manually copied the i386 folder to the SSD drive, and after that the installation went down without a glitch.
Running games from the SSD is pure awesomeness! Except for multi-tasking, limited by the P4 3.4, the speed in completing drive-intensive tasks exceeds anything out there using HDD.
BTW, since you're here, and we're talking about SATA 1, then you or your client probably has an AGP board. If so, check out AGP cards from HIS, like the HIS ATI HD 4670 1GB AGP card with HDMI. Trust me, an SSD combined with the HD 4670 will release the beast inside your AGP system!
I tried Windows 7 on it but it doesn't run well, being only single-core. The fact that it's a 3.4ghz chip doesn't seem to help much in that regard. If you are using single core I would stick with XP, just use Diskpar to align the partition with an offset of 64 (the XP default offset is 63, which causes a problem with SSD's: SSD's use an offset of 64, which Win7 will do automatically but XP will not). If you do not create a partition with an offset of 64 when installing XP, then the system will have to write 2 bits of information for every 1 bit saved, cutting your write speed in half, as well as decrease the SSD's life expectancy.

The Diskpar utility will create the correct offset for installing XP on an SSD:
(All images are from the OCZ website)

Install the SSD in a Windows computer with the Windows drive as the only other drive.
It is strongly recommended you disconnect any other drives (i.e. data drives)

First, go to Computer Management by right-clicking "My Computer", click "Manage", and "Disk Management".
Verify the drive NUMBER of your SSD drive.
BE ABSOLUTELY PRECISE ABOUT THIS.

Diskpar utility:

https://kb.wisc.edu/images/group14/4556/diskpar.exe

Place diskpar in the root drive(C:\).

In a command prompt, type:

C:\diskpar -s 1
(note the number here is the Drive Number of your SSD. Be absolutely precise about this. Mine was drive #1, yours may be different)

and enter, then hit Y to continue...see pic1

Pic 1

Now we need to hit Y again to continue and press enter/return..see pic 2

Pic 2

Note the Alignment number will be 64, see pic 3

Pic 3

Pic 4

After creating the partition with diskpar, format using "Disk Management". (Copy the 1386 folder from the XP CD to the SSD). Install XP to this partition and make no changes to it during installation.

You should use the whole drive space for the partition, and using a Multi Level Cell SSD for data storage is not recommended. Static files don't do well on an SSD, whereas files which are updated frequently, such as OS and application files, are the ones that benefit most from SSD technology and can be replaced in the event of data corruption.
If you want to use MLC SSD's for data storage, well then, you need be fastidious in your backup and recovery practices. These aren't like our old scsi drives that seem to last forever and never develop bad sectors. I had the unfortunate experience of losing the entire OS on an SSD a few weeks ago, just turned on the box and . . "No OS Found". Bios reported the disk as the primary boot and #1 disk. Just . . everything . . gone, drive empty. wow. but, with an SSD, reinstalling XP and all my apps took less than 1 hour and it's worked fine ever since. With SSD's, many applications install almost instantly.

the price of Service Pack 3 = less than 5 mins.
My data = priceless.
SSD is great for OS and apps, but use a platter for your dater

Upgraded AGP system:
Asus P4P800-E - socket 478, 800mhz FSB, SATA I (1.5 Gb/s)
Pentium IV - 3.4Ghz - 1MB L2 cache (upgraded from 3.0)
OCZ Vertex2 60GB SSD - Windows XP
Seagate 250GB SATA II HDD - data (old OS drive)
4 GB Kingston PC3200 400mhz RAM, 3GB available in x86, hyper-threading yields 800mhz FSB
HIS ATI HD 4670 1GB UV-Reactive AGP Graphics Adapter w/ HDMI (upgraded from EVGA nVidia 7800 GS CO 256MB)
Scythe Mugen IIb Heatpipe CPU cooler (upgraded from Zalman CNPS7700-Cu)
Lamptron FC-5 4 channel Fan controller (upgrade from no controller)
Thermaltake 350 watt PSU (fans replaced)
Thermaltake Shark Case - Black (upgraded with soundproofing and Gelid Wing12 UV-Blue and Arctic 120mm PWM fans).
CPU fan - MassCool UV-Red 120mm (red LEDs replaced with UV)
RAM cooler fans - UV blue with UV red blades
Sleeving and cables - 100% UV-reactive
Lighting - 100% UV (except front panel)

cheers

 

[Old Hippie]

Nice post frrrosty but this thread is 10 months old and the discussion was about a SATA1 laptop.

 

[frrrosty]

Thanks, i realize its an old thread but it still comes up the #1 return on google if you search "ssd with sata 1". The info would apply equally to laptops so I hope it's not considered off-topic.

cheers

 

[bhvm]

Thanks, i realize its an old thread but it still comes up the #1 return on google if you search "ssd with sata 1". The info would apply equally to laptops so I hope it's not considered off-topic.

cheers

Due to the same reason I think It will be wise to update my experience with SSD upgrade on really old systems.
I have a couple of Old laptops from 2006. They are on Intel 945M chipet with SATA 1 support. The CPUs are intel 479mPGA YONAH cores. The laptops are pretty strong and do 8 hours of duty every day, without fail. Recently I started getting SMART errors on them, Although I never lost and files or corruptions, It was wise to replace the ageing HDDs. The HDDs were seagate 7200RPM 80GB Units.

I went ahed and ordered WD240 GB green SSD which is basic Entry level SSD.
Here is my epxerience-

1. SATA 3 SSD DOES WORK on SATA 1 boards, with limited speeds.
2. Install/Restore went a breeze due to AOMEI Backupper.
3. The Speeds are capped at 128/MB/S irrespective of what bench i use. So, SATA 1, 1.5Gb standard is practically only 128 for my laptop/chipset. (I was expecting atleast 180 MBPS if we divide 1500 by 8.)

4. SSDs do run hot. This was unexpected but they run at 45.C with Light load.

in Summary, go ahed. The laptops feel snappy and have a new lease of life in them.

 

[pauldun170]

I've been considering getting an SSD for my laptop to make it a little "snappier," but apparently it's capped to SATA I speeds of 1.5gbps (Thinkpad T61). Would it still be a worthwhile upgrade, or would I be missing out on a lot?

From what I can gather, the main benefit to an SSD for normal use is the boost in random read speed and the lower latency, which wouldn't be affected at all by the SATA I speed limitations.

Yes. Absolutely.
For an ancient laptop....I would definitely swap out the archaic hdd for an SSD. Will completely revitalize it. Say this based on experience and it completely transformed the laptop. Crippled SSD speeds are excessively superior to whatever hard drive your would stick in an old laptop. With prices where they are its a no brainer.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Yeah, I moved a P5Q motherboard system to an ssd two years ago, it was a game changer. Not sure if it’s sata one or two but I’m sure the ssd sped things up substantially. 100% worthwhile upgrade.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Yeah, I moved a P5Q motherboard system to an ssd two years ago, it was a game changer. Not sure if it’s sata one or two but I’m sure the ssd sped things up substantially. 100% worthwhile upgrade.

I think that Core2-era systems were all SATA2 (3.0Gbit/sec) on the native chipset (SATA1 1.5Gbit/sec was from back in the Via-chipset Pentium 4 days), but regardless, you should consider upgrading even older rigs to SSD, if they have SATA ports. (Don't forget, if the native chipset has IDE, but you have PCI ports, then you can drop in PCI cards with SATA ports too, look for ones with the Silicon Image SATA chipset(s).)

It's largely a myth that older systems don't benefit from SSDs. (Although, the converse is, newer systems benefit MORE from an SSD over a HDD, than older systems.) But in both cases, it allows the system to reach its full potential as far as CPU and RAM goes, because it's finally not waiting on storage all of the time.

 

[Shmee]

Make sure AHCI is enabled if at all possible.