Given my AMD system below, what fast and reliable SSDs do you think I can buy for under $90 during BF season and what type of performance figures am I liable to get?

Will my AMD support TRIM?

Which AHCI should I be loading: MS or AMD?

My Specs are:

Acer Aspire x3200 w/ AMD Phenom X3 (TripleCore) 8400 2.1 GHz (Stock speed & HS)
4 GB G·Skill DDR2 800 PC2-6400
Onboard NVidia GeForce 8200/9200
Asus Xonar DX
WD 500GB (30 GB OS partition for 1+ year)
Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Build 7600

Given my AMD system below, what fast and reliable SSDs do you think I can buy for under $90 during BF season and what type of performance figures am I liable to get?

Will my AMD support TRIM?

Which AHCI should I be loading: MS or AMD?

My Specs are:

Acer Aspire x3200 w/ AMD Phenom X3 (TripleCore) 8400 2.1 GHz (Stock speed & HS)
4 GB G·Skill DDR2 800 PC2-6400
Onboard NVidia GeForce 8200/9200
Asus Xonar DX
WD 500GB (30 GB OS partition for 1+ year)
Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Build 7600

First off Iam assuming this is a desktop?

Secondly, why are you throwing money at a desktop that I highly doubt will last another 2-3 years?

Thirdly, I personally would spend that $90 to upgrade the rig or save towards a new X4 or X6. but honestly, I dont know why brands will be having a BF sale on which SSDs. Right now, you can get a really nice OCZ 60GB SSD (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227550) from Newegg for $10 more. So I expect atleast a major brand at around 100-120GB for BF.

First off Iam assuming this is a desktop?

Secondly, why are you throwing money at a desktop that I highly doubt will last another 2-3 years?

Thirdly, I personally would spend that $90 to upgrade the rig or save towards a new X4 or X6. but honestly, I dont know why brands will be having a BF sale on which SSDs. Right now, you can get a really nice OCZ 60GB SSD (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227550) from Newegg for $10 more. So I expect atleast a major brand at around 100-120GB for BF.
1. Yes.

2. Why not?

3. Why won't brands be having BF sales on which SSDs?

2. Why not?

3. Why won't brands be having BF sales on which SSDs?

Don't worry about him, you won't be sorry with the SSD upgrade. The only naysayers of the SSD revolution are those who've never used one.

You should find some nice deals on BF. As I've stated many times before, I've been happy with my two Crucial M4's and I got the 64GB one for $80, within your budget.

First off Iam assuming this is a desktop?

Secondly, why are you throwing money at a desktop that I highly doubt will last another 2-3 years?

Thirdly, I personally would spend that $90 to upgrade the rig or save towards a new X4 or X6. but honestly, I dont know why brands will be having a BF sale on which SSDs. Right now, you can get a really nice OCZ 60GB SSD (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227550) from Newegg for $10 more. So I expect atleast a major brand at around 100-120GB for BF.

You do realize you can reuse SSD's in a newer build in the future right?...

I agree with others. Go with the m4 you will not regret it. Make sure to upgrade to firmware 0009.

I agree with others. Go with the m4 you will not regret it. Make sure to upgrade to firmware 0009.
What's 0009 do for it?

What's 0009 do for it?

Fixes crap and makes it a little faster. In the early editions some users, many Mac users, were complaining that their systems would freeze up randomly for 30 seconds and then return to normal. My macbook would do this just when using VLC for some reason about once a day. The 0009 update fixes that issue. SSD firmware updates can be a pain, but I would definitely keep up with them.

This is the one I use. It will be $85 starting at 1pm eastern.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148441

This is the one I use. It will be $85 starting at 1pm eastern.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148441
When were you notified about this deal?

When were you notified about this deal?

Start using deal alerts!!!

When were you notified about this deal?

I get the Shell Shocker emails every day. I just signed up for them on Newegg's site.

Start using deal alerts!!!
How do I do this?

I get the Shell Shocker emails every day. I just signed up for them on Newegg's site.
How do I do this?

I'd guess it's somewhere in you account settings.

I did that I think a while ago but I didn't get alert. I guess no thread was posted about this deal.

I did that I think a while ago but I didn't get alert. I guess no thread was posted about this deal.

...User CP...My Deal Alerts

There's no way in hell you aren't getting emails often on an "SSD" deal alert. I had one up and got a ton of emails, mostly kingston deals. Also there was a thread posted, http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3427170, so your deal alerts were either not setup or not setup properly.

How do I do this?

I don't remember exactly how I did it, but when I signed up for their newsletter, it gave me the option somewhere to be notified of the Shell Shocker deals. Also, if you go to their site every day, you can see the upcoming deals, but they do not show what the price will be.

http://www.newegg.com/Special/ShellShocker.aspx?cm_sp=ShellShocker-_-756374-_-10172011_1

...User CP...My Deal Alerts

There's no way in hell you aren't getting emails often on an "SSD" deal alert. I had one up and got a ton of emails, mostly kingston deals. Also there was a thread posted, http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3427170, so your deal alerts were either not setup or not setup properly.My one and only deal alert was set up for hot deals thread.
I don't remember exactly how I did it, but when I signed up for their newsletter, it gave me the option somewhere to be notified of the Shell Shocker deals. Also, if you go to their site every day, you can see the upcoming deals, but they do not show what the price will be.

http://www.newegg.com/Special/ShellShocker.aspx?cm_sp=ShellShocker-_-756374-_-10172011_1I didn't know this.

Hold on a tootin' minute here...

Now I'm not a naysayer of the SSD revolution ... but I just realized that those who are saying they have noticed a vast improvement from HDD to SSDs have machines much much MUCH faster and better than mine to start off with. This leads me to suspect that this is so because you guys have faster CPUs, better video cards and RAM, etc which allow the SSDs to shine, whereas my machine which is slow and outdated may not show similar noticeable improvements, if at all.

Hold on a tootin' minute here...

Now I'm not a naysayer of the SSD revolution ... but I just realized that those who are saying they have noticed a vast improvement from HDD to SSDs have machines much much MUCH faster and better than mine to start off with. This leads me to suspect that this is so because you guys have faster CPUs, better video cards and RAM, etc which allow the SSDs to shine, whereas my machine which is slow and outdated may not show similar noticeable improvements, if at all.

That may be true, but the HD is a lot of times the bottleneck in a system. The hard drive usually never saturates the entire bus of a SATA II or SATA II connection. SSDs will utilize the bus more than a traditional HD and will also be quieter and use less power

That may be true, but the HD is a lot of times the bottleneck in a system. The hard drive usually never saturates the entire bus of a SATA II or SATA II connection. SSDs will utilize the bus more than a traditional HD and will also be quieter and use less powerI agree except for the power consumption.
When they first hit the market, there was a lot of buzz about that, and you may have noticed that they rarely make those claims anymore, as it is only semi true.
It will take a teenie weenie bit less juice than a 7200 rpm laptop drive, for instance, but it also will take a tiny bit more than a 5400 rpm, in general.
Different brands and models of hard drives, consume different amounts of power, but on the average, that is how it works out.
I'm a huge SSD fan at so many levels, but power consumption is not one of them.
I spent many many hours with Rightmark, studying the drain differences between the two, and was quite surprised that the SSD didn't live up to that claim.
As they say, Your experience may vary, as there are other factors to consider, like the brand and model of the SSD.
I exclusively use Intel X25 drives, so my conclusions are all based on the tests conducted with those models.
Some other SSD's may consume less.

I agree except for the power consumption.
When they first hit the market, there was a lot of buzz about that, and you may have noticed that they rarely make those claims anymore, as it is only semi true.
It will take a teenie weenie bit less juice than a 7200 rpm laptop drive, for instance, but it also will take a tiny bit more than a 5400 rpm, in general.
Different brands and models of hard drives, consume different amounts of power, but on the average, that is how it works out.
I'm a huge SSD fan at so many levels, but power consumption is not one of them.
I spent many many hours with Rightmark, studying the drain differences between the two, and was quite surprised that the SSD didn't live up to that claim.
As they say, Your experience may vary, as there are other factors to consider, like the brand and model of the SSD.
I exclusively use Intel X25 drives, so my conclusions are all based on the tests conducted with those models.
Some other SSD's may consume less.

Under load it appears to vary in both sequential and random read/write tests. So in certain circumstances with certain drives you could slightly surpass the power consumption of a standard hard drive with an SSD. From the testing I've seen on newer drives though this doesn't play out very often, if at all.

However, this is also offset by the power consumption in idle mode, a standard hard drive has to continue spinning the platter while an SSD does nothing. Also an SSD spends more time in idle mode because it has faster data access. So on the whole an SSD will consume less power than a standard drive but we are talking about potential differences of a few watts max, 1 watt typical. 1 watt in a laptop isn't going to make or break your battery life.

Under load it appears to vary in both sequential and random read/write tests. So in certain circumstances with certain drives you could slightly surpass the power consumption of a standard hard drive with an SSD. From the testing I've seen on newer drives though this doesn't play out very often, if at all.

However, this is also offset by the power consumption in idle mode, a standard hard drive has to continue spinning the platter while an SSD does nothing. Also an SSD spends more time in idle mode because it has faster data access. So on the whole an SSD will consume less power than a standard drive but we are talking about potential differences of a few watts max, 1 watt typical. 1 watt in a laptop isn't going to make or break your battery life.
The theory makes sense and I heard several reasons as to why SSD's were going to consume less current and run cooler, however, all my observations have shown that to not be true.
As mentioned, I used Intel X25 SSD's comparing them to 5400 rpm mechanical drives, as well as 7200 models in a netbook (and a few other machines too).
I had two identical netbooks, installed the image from one into the other to make for the most clinical observations possible, then used Rightmark to observe power consumption.
I compared them at idle, under average load, heavy load and everything else I could think off, and the bottom line is that my SSD's consumed a bit more than the stock 160 gig 5400 rpm drive and less than a 500 gig 7200 rpm WD.
Having scoured the internet to see if others had made the same observations, I found that to be true.
So the manufacturers did their best to make it a selling point, but it simply is not true.
Just as your above theory makes sense, the manufacturers explained countless reasons as to why they were electrically more efficient, but all our tests disprove that allegation.

From Tom's hardware,

The SSD Power Consumption Hoax
12:00 AM - June 27, 2008 by Patrick Schmid and Achim Roos
Table of contents

1. Flash SSDs Don’t Improve Your Notebook Battery Runtime – they Reduce It
2. How Can Battery Runtime Be Shorter?
3. More Issues with Ultra-Compact Form Factors Expected
4. Flash SSDs Tested
5. Memoright MR25.5-032S, 32 GB
6. Sandisk SSD 5000, 32 GB
7. Test Setup

8. Benchmarks Results
9. Benchmark Results, Continued
10. Benchmark Results, Continued
11. I/O Performance Results
12. Mobilemark Results
13. Performance x Battery Runtime Index
14. Power Consumption Results
15. Conclusion

Flash-based solid state drives (SSDs) are considered to be the future of performance hard drives, and everyone seems to be jumping on the bandwagon. We are no exception, as we have been publishing many articles on flash-based SSDs during the last few months, emphasizing the performance gains and the potential power savings brought by flash memory. And there is nothing wrong with this, since SLC flash SSDs easily outperform conventional hard drives today (SLC = single level cell). However, we have discovered that the power savings aren’t there: in fact, battery runtimes actually decrease if you use a flash SSD.
________________________________________________________

Could Tom’s Hardware be Wrong?

No, our results are definitely correct. We’ve looked at almost a dozen different flash SSDs from seven vendors over the last few months, and measured acceptable or sometimes even disappointing power requirements with most flash SSDs. In an effort to determine the actual impact on notebook systems, we took four SSDs that we had available in our test lab, and ran a series of Mobilemark benchmark runs on a Dell Latitude D630 notebook. We found runtime differences of up to one hour (!) when using a flash SSD compared to a high-performance 7,200 RPM 2.5” notebook hard drive.

The theory makes sense and I heard several reasons as to why SSD's were going to consume less current and run cooler, however, all my observations have shown that to not be true.
As mentioned, I used Intel X25 SSD's comparing them to 5400 rpm mechanical drives, as well as 7200 models in a netbook (and a few other machines too).
I had two identical netbooks, installed the image from one into the other to make for the most clinical observations possible, then used Rightmark to observe power consumption.
I compared them at idle, under average load, heavy load and everything else I could think off, and the bottom line is that my SSD's consumed a bit more than the stock 160 gig 5400 rpm drive and less than a 500 gig 7200 rpm WD.
Having scoured the internet to see if others had made the same observations, I found that to be true.
So the manufacturers did their best to make it a selling point, but it simply is not true.
Just as your above theory makes sense, the manufacturers explained countless reasons as to why they were electrically more efficient, but all our tests disprove that allegation.

I'd like to see how your numbers stack up against Anand's, http://www.anandtech.com/show/4253/the-crucial-m4-micron-c400-ssd-review/11.

Also it seems like you are doing spot tests, not longer term with identical usage consumption test.


From Tom's hardware,

The SSD Power Consumption Hoax
12:00 AM - June 27, 2008 by Patrick Schmid and Achim Roos
Table of contents

1. Flash SSDs Don’t Improve Your Notebook Battery Runtime – they Reduce It
2. How Can Battery Runtime Be Shorter?
3. More Issues with Ultra-Compact Form Factors Expected
4. Flash SSDs Tested
5. Memoright MR25.5-032S, 32 GB
6. Sandisk SSD 5000, 32 GB
7. Test Setup

8. Benchmarks Results
9. Benchmark Results, Continued
10. Benchmark Results, Continued
11. I/O Performance Results
12. Mobilemark Results
13. Performance x Battery Runtime Index
14. Power Consumption Results
15. Conclusion

Flash-based solid state drives (SSDs) are considered to be the future of performance hard drives, and everyone seems to be jumping on the bandwagon. We are no exception, as we have been publishing many articles on flash-based SSDs during the last few months, emphasizing the performance gains and the potential power savings brought by flash memory. And there is nothing wrong with this, since SLC flash SSDs easily outperform conventional hard drives today (SLC = single level cell). However, we have discovered that the power savings aren’t there: in fact, battery runtimes actually decrease if you use a flash SSD.
________________________________________________________

Could Tom’s Hardware be Wrong?

No, our results are definitely correct. We’ve looked at almost a dozen different flash SSDs from seven vendors over the last few months, and measured acceptable or sometimes even disappointing power requirements with most flash SSDs. In an effort to determine the actual impact on notebook systems, we took four SSDs that we had available in our test lab, and ran a series of Mobilemark benchmark runs on a Dell Latitude D630 notebook. We found runtime differences of up to one hour (!) when using a flash SSD compared to a high-performance 7,200 RPM 2.5” notebook hard drive.

First, they issued an apology on that article because their testing methodology was flawed. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-hard-drive,1968.html. Although they stood by their general conclusions I can't see the point in pulling test results from 2008 as definitive proof. The anand link I posted has more up to date test results.

And at the end of the day does this really matter? As I stated the watt advantage is miniscule and using a 5400 RPM drive is somewhat disingenuous since we are trying to do a performance comparison. So no matter which way the power consumption scale falls the performance benefit is going to far outweigh any discussions of power consumption.

I'm sorry I did not give 100% accurate info, but I'll take the performance boost since I am using it in a desktop.

I'd like to see how your numbers stack up against Anand's, http://www.anandtech.com/show/4253/the-crucial-m4-micron-c400-ssd-review/11.

Also it seems like you are doing spot tests, not longer term with identical usage consumption test.




First, they issued an apology on that article because their testing methodology was flawed. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-hard-drive,1968.html. Although they stood by their general conclusions I can't see the point in pulling test results from 2008 as definitive proof. The anand link I posted has more up to date test results.

And at the end of the day does this really matter? As I stated the watt advantage is miniscule and using a 5400 RPM drive is somewhat disingenuous since we are trying to do a performance comparison. So no matter which way the power consumption scale falls the performance benefit is going to far outweigh any discussions of power consumption.
It doesn't matter much to me, except that I'm a technician and I like to be well informed. I explained the results of my tests and you challenged them, so it must matter to you.
Being as how you were having difficulty accepting my clinical observations and you once more challenged my data, I courteously provided you with supporting evidence from a respected and well known website, which you also choose to challenge, then you ask ME if it matters????
You are making a big issue out of it, not I, so please do not transfer your guilt to me.
The difference here is that you are theorizing about the issue, whereas I know the results from experience.
I've been in electronics for 44 years now.
Might you think that I know a thing or two by now?

It doesn't matter much to me, except that I'm a technician and I like to be well informed. I explained the results of my tests and you challenged them, so it must matter to you.
Being as how you were having difficulty accepting my clinical observations and you once more challenged my data, I courteously provided you with supporting evidence from a respected and well known website, which you also choose to challenge, then you ask ME if it matters????
You are making a big issue out of it, not I, so please do not transfer your guilt to me.
The difference here is that you are theorizing about the issue, whereas I know the results from experience.
I've been in electronics for 44 years now.
Might you think that I know a thing or two by now?

I'm an engineer, it's my job not to trust you. :lol:

Although I'd still like to know how your results stack up to Anand's.

I'm an engineer, it's my job not to trust you. :lol:

Although I'd still like to know how your results stack up to Anand's.
I did not ask you to trust me.
You have been rudeand bulllyish to several people in this thread and you have a tendency to try to divert attention away from the issues by way of saying things like "does it really matter" as you go on and on and continue to debate the point, or things like "it's my job to not trust you, I'm an engineer" when nobody asked you to trust them.
This type of verbal assault may work on children who are intimidated by you, so I suggest you go use it on them and leave me alone, as I have a cerebrum and I know what my tests showed, while you only think.
10 thinks aren't worth one "I know".
I will not respond to you any more.
I responded in this thread to provide the OP with the best information I can.
If you feel a strong need to battle with everyone, kindly take it somewhere else.

I did not ask you to trust me.
You have been rudeand bulllyish to several people in this thread and you have a tendency to try to divert attention away from the issues by way of saying things like "does it really matter" as you go on and on and continue to debate the point, or things like "it's my job to not trust you, I'm an engineer" when nobody asked you to trust them.
This type of verbal assault may work on children who are intimidated by you, so I suggest you go use it on them and leave me alone, as I have a cerebrum and I know what my tests showed, while you only think.
10 thinks aren't worth one "I know".
I will not respond to you any more.
I responded in this thread to provide the OP with the best information I can.
If you feel a strong need to battle with everyone, kindly take it somewhere else.

Clearly you need to visit the podium to see how bad it can get around here. I'm not bullying anyone, I'm simply asking questions. I was diverting attention away from the argument because even 1 watt per hour is insignificant IMO. If anything I was supporting your original argument, which was essentially that power savings shouldn't be a factor for SSD usage.

And yes, you did implicitly ask me to trust you. You ran tests on your own and the results of these tests were used as evidence in your arguments even though you didn't post the results. So yes, I'm supposed to trust that you were competent in the execution and interpretation of your tests because I have no data to work with. And when you post links from 2008, results which were admittedly flawed by the author, it makes your argument even more specious.

I apologize if this is off topic, I just scanned this thread. (New to this tech-support forum)

Regarding SSDs in laptops draining power? YES!

I have a Compaq Presario CQ60-420US notebook I got from Staples about two Summers ago for ~~$280. (Thanks SD!)

It was slow as a fly molasses, taking two minutes or more from a cold boot to an open Firefox window at a web site.

A year ago, I put an inexpensive(~~120 AR) Kingston 120 GB SSD in. I was shocked that after 60 mins or so of use, the battery was getting very low. I looked at the manual and see it's rated at about 5w-6w as I recall. This is many times more than the stock HDD.

It's a fair trade off... I boot to Win7 in about 20 seconds, open a browser in another 10 seconds. I've never been on more than an hour away from a power source, anyway.

If you're considering putting an SSD in your notebook, DO IT! Shortend battery life between charges is a minor tradeoff, if you don't need hours of up time.

I'm going to wring your neck, you made two different threads about this same issue??? WTF? I didn't know they shared the same audience.

Are you stalking me?

I didn't know they shared the same audience.

Are you stalking me?

Don't know where you started them, but they are both in Tech Support so I'm bound to see them both. I didn't even realize it too until I saw you posting in both threads and then I saw who started both threads.

So don't worry, your dreams of being stalked haven't come true yet. :D

OK.

I think I'm finally ready to buy an SSD.

Now all I want for $80 is a Crucial M4 by BF or Xmas.

Given my AMD system below, what fast and reliable SSDs do you think I can buy for under $90 during BF season and what type of performance figures am I liable to get?

Will my AMD support TRIM?

Which AHCI should I be loading: MS or AMD?

My Specs are:

Acer Aspire x3200 w/ AMD Phenom X3 (TripleCore) 8400 2.1 GHz (Stock speed & HS)
4 GB G·Skill DDR2 800 PC2-6400
Onboard NVidia GeForce 8200/9200
Asus Xonar DX
WD 500GB (30 GB OS partition for 1+ year)
Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Build 7600
finally got my crucial m4 64gb ssd and was wondering if anyone can tell me these numbers mean, i.e, is my ssd performing 'good' given my limited system?

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z21/Stealth3si/WEI.jpg

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z21/Stealth3si/CrucialM4.jpg

Now, I'm on a look out for a budget sata3 addon card for my new ssd. I would need one that will allow faster speed than my current speed above, at a budget price knowing full well i won't be reaching nearly the full sata3 speed but must be reliable and have at least one port.

i'm comparing these two:

1. HighPoint Rocket 620-OEM PCI-Express 2.0 x1 Low Profile SATA III (6.0Gb/s) Controller Card (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=16-115-099&SortField=0&SummaryType=0&Pagesize=100&PurchaseMark=&SelectedRating=-1&VideoOnlyMark=False&VendorMark=&IsFeedbackTab=true&Keywords=%28keywords%29&Page=1#scrollFullInfo) $9.99 FS
2. HighPoint Rocket 620 PCI-Express 2.0 x1 SATA III (6.0Gb/s) Controller Card (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816115072) $24.99 + $4.99 S/H

they seem both to the identical but not sure why one is more expensive and higher ratings.

EDIT: if the mods dont mind i will split this thread because it's getting off topic.

finally got my crucial m4 64gb ssd and was wondering if anyone can tell me these numbers mean, i.e, is my ssd performing 'good' given my limited system?

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z21/Stealth3si/WEI.jpg

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z21/Stealth3si/CrucialM4.jpg

Is the crucial drive SATA II or SATA III? If it's SATA II it looks like it should be around where it is and you won't get any benefit out of upgrading to SATA III

Now, I'm on a look out for a budget sata3 addon card for my new ssd. I would need one that will allow faster speed than my current speed above, at a budget price knowing full well i won't be reaching nearly the full sata3 speed but must be reliable and have at least one port.

i'm comparing these two:

1. HighPoint Rocket 620-OEM PCI-Express 2.0 x1 Low Profile SATA III (6.0Gb/s) Controller Card (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=16-115-099&SortField=0&SummaryType=0&Pagesize=100&PurchaseMark=&SelectedRating=-1&VideoOnlyMark=False&VendorMark=&IsFeedbackTab=true&Keywords=%28keywords%29&Page=1#scrollFullInfo) $9.99 FS
2. HighPoint Rocket 620 PCI-Express 2.0 x1 SATA III (6.0Gb/s) Controller Card (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816115072) $24.99 + $4.99 S/H

they seem both to the identical but not sure why one is more expensive and higher ratings.

EDIT: if the mods dont mind i will split this thread because it's getting off topic.

One is OEM, which means that it probably won't come with accesories or in the original retail box. Might also explain why the retail one gets better ratings (better packaging, less prone to fail)

Is the crucial drive SATA II or SATA III? If it's SATA II it looks like it should be around where it is and you won't get any benefit out of upgrading to SATA III

The M4s are SATA III. If the card is $10 I might say give it a shot if it's a good chipset, but much more money than that and I would say wait until your next upgrade.

Is the crucial drive SATA II or SATA III? If it's SATA II it looks like it should be around where it is and you won't get any benefit out of upgrading to SATA III



One is OEM, which means that it probably won't come with accesories or in the original retail box. Might also explain why the retail one gets better ratings (better packaging, less prone to fail)it's sata3. i wonder how much this card would allow it to go faster, if at all. Obviously not full sata3 speed.
The M4s are SATA III. If the card is $10 I might say give it a shot if it's a good chipset, but much more money than that and I would say wait until your next upgrade.Do you know what chipset it uses?

EDIT: It uses marvel chipset but I think i can use windows default drivers or an altogether different drivers instead, according to amazon reviews.