Is Your SATA Cable Slowing Down Your Data Transfers? Max PC Investigates
Is Your SATA Cable Slowing Down Your Data Transfers? Max PC Investigates
Posted 11/15/2011 at 1:04pm
| by Gordon Mah Ung
59
Comments
Print
Is your SATA cable slowing you down? Maximum PC investigates
We had a recent incident in our lab where SATA 6Gb/s performance inexplicably dropped going from one motherboard to the next. In theory, both boards should have offered the same performance on the SATA 6Gb/s port as both used the same south bridge chip in the board and the same SSD. When we couldn’t diagnose it as drivers or a mis-configured benchmark run, we decided to swap out the SATA cable for a “real” SATA 6Gb/s cable. Like magic, the performance went back to what we expected.
This got us wondering if there is actually a need to run “real” SATA 6GB/s cables with high performance SSDs. The official word from the SATA International Organization is no, not at all. The SATA I/O lays it out in its FAQ: “Question: Does SATA 6Gb/s require different connectors and cables to support the higher transfer speed? Answer: The same cables and connectors used for current SATA 1.5 and SATA 3.0 Gb/s implementations can be used to connect SATA 6Gb/s devices, although SATA-IO recommends quality components be selected to ensure data integrity and robust operation at the faster SATA 6Gb/s transfer rate. Keeping the existing SATA connector form factor enables SATA 6Gb/s to be designed into the same cost-conscious hardware architectures while minimizing infrastructure changes.”
If you think about it, that’s a pretty amazing feat. SATA 150 on motherboards dates back to at least 2002. It’s almost like asking a cable that you bought for USB in 1997 to handle the throughput of USB 3.0. Hell, even Parallel ATA went through several revisions including those much coveted 80-conductor cables. Over its lifetime.
To put SATA to the test, we grabbed a fistful of cables including two that date back to the early days of SATA. How do we know they’re that old? While the cables aren’t dated, we pulled them out of vintage motherboard boxes that have been moldering in our lab. One was an Intel 875P board, the other an nForce 2 board. The rest were culled from the floor, cabinets and various places that SATA cables end up. One cable was an expensive Adaptec SATA cable that came with a RAID card, another a cheapo 36-inch (just short of the maximum length of 3.3 feet while another tested was a tiny pig-tail SATA cable with a run length of about 5-inches. For a final fun test, we decided to use several SATA cable extenders to join several 36-inch SATA cables together—in effect creating a 9-foot SATA cable that we literally stretched across the room.
To conduct our test, we used an Asus motherboard with Intel’s latest peripheral controller hub and its blisteringly fast SATA 6Gb/s performance. The drive we tapped was a 240GB OWC Mercury Extreme Pro SSD. The Mercury Extreme Pro uses a Sandforce 2nd gen controller and is among the fastest SSDs for sale today. To measure the performance we used CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 and ran the benchmarks’ sequential read and write score three times. All of the cables were plugged into the same SATA port.
The Verdict
Let’s first say that when we started this, we were absolutely sure we’d see a difference. Afterall, moving to an authentic SATA 6Gb/s cable cleared up our problems the first time right? Wrong. As we worked our way through the first few cables, we began to realize that the SATA I/O did its work when it first put together the Serial ATA spec for cables. There is virtually no difference between a brand-new SATA 6Gb/s marked cable made this year and one produced nearly eight years ago as far as performance goes. Expensive cable, cheap cable; long cable, short cable—none of it seemingly made a real difference. If anything, the minor variances in performance can be attributed to variances in the benchmark or the SSD.
During our testing, we also tested out a couple of often not recommended practices: bending your SATA cable at right angles. Many motherboard vendors recommend against putting right-angles into the cables during system builds so we took a cable and put about 15 right-angle kinks in it: no difference. We also took a 36-inch cable and tightly wrapped around a hot PSU cable: no difference.
What about joining two 36-inch cables end-to-end using male-to-male connectors? That’s about 30-inches outside the SATA spec for cable length: No. Frakking. Difference. The only thing that stopped SATA dead in its tracks was running three 36-inch SATA cables end-to-end using cable No. 3, No. 4 and No 11. That’s nine feet of cables kids. Don’t try this at home!
Since we didn’t want to just bunch it up on the desk, we stretched it across the lab and then used a remote PSU to run the OWC Mercury Extreme Pro drive. Surprisingly, we saw roughly 250MB/s read speeds but write speeds, where we suspect the controller and protocol are a little more stringent plunged down to 25MB/s. The benchmark ultimately failed due to read and write errors to the device. It didn’t always fail, but we wouldn’t entrust our data to it.
So what does this tell us? The SATA cable is an incredibly robust cable. It’s the cockroach or AK of computer cables. That’s not bad and we certainly wish all computer cables performed that way. We’ve certainly had our share of wonky USB support thanks to really borderline USB cables.
But what about our original motherboard test where switching cables fixed it? Looking at our data now, we suspect the more likely culprit was a bad cable, a dirty connector or a connector that wasn’t seated. It’s a reminder that a single instance isn’t enough to create a trend. Our hats off to the SATA I/O for a pretty damned robust cable spec.
Benchmarks
| Read (MB/s) | Write (MB/s) | |
|---|---|---|
| Cable No. 1 | 508 | 224 |
| Cable No. 2 | 507 | 222 |
| Cable No. 3 | 508 | 225 |
| Cable No. 4 | 505 | 230 |
| Cable No. 5 | 509 | 222 |
| Cable No. 6 | 506 | 222 |
| Cable No. 7 | 506 | 224 |
| Cable No. 8 | 506 | 224 |
| Cable No. 9 | 505 | 223 |
| Cable No. 10 | 509 | 233 |
| Cable No. 11 | 508 | 223 |
| Cable No. 12 | 509 | 224 |
| 72-inch SATA cable conversion | 510 | 223 |
| 108-inch SATA cable conversion | Fail | Fail |
Our tests were performed with a 240GB OWC Mercury Pro SSD on an Intel SATA 6Gb/s controller.
More like this
tehLazyNinja
February 21, 2012 at 3:25am
Excellent work. . . From the start I suspected oxidized contacts, but the resulting study is definitely worthwhile and satisfies all kinds of curiosity.
D00dlavy
February 19, 2012 at 10:54pm
I signed on to say this was the best article I ever read. Thanks!
johnybravo
February 06, 2012 at 1:22am
Nice article information on phlebotomy training visit my link
http://www.phlebotomytrainingexpert.com
johnybravo
February 06, 2012 at 1:20am
Nice article information on phlebotomy training visit my link
http://www.phlebotomytrainingexpert.com
Computer_Repair...
January 27, 2012 at 8:05am
I've always wondered what the electrical/design limits were for SATA cables. I guess this sort of applies to eSATA too, since the only difference between the cables is the pinout/connector AFAIK (some have better shielding, but not necessarily). Interesting article to say the least. Thanks.
Doctor_Death
January 05, 2012 at 9:06am
I recently installed a OCZ Vertex 3 240GB, to use with the new Intel DX79SI and 3960X only I used one of the older sata cables and could not score higher than 451 with AS SSD, I decided to use one of the new sata 6GB cables that came with the ASRock X79 Extreme 9 that we had gotten in for review, and my score jumped to 577, a 126 point difference.
robluft
January 01, 2012 at 1:50am
I must say I like the unbiased and thorough analysis. I knew the spec dictated the cables to be interchangable but this is awesome data to 'calm' the confusion.
While the kinks test is pretty awesome (no BS ;-) I'm amazed wrapping around the hot PSU line didn't cause magnetic interference and/or increased thermal resistance. Really shows they did a bangup job in establishing the requrements to be very robust from the start. I wish that was the case in many, many other areas in the tech industry.
neural0
December 27, 2011 at 7:24am
I always love reading articles that face-punch marketing hype. Good job guys!
dav532000
November 23, 2011 at 7:55am
Thanks for the review just shows that sometimes the latest isn't always the greatest. Like the bending it 15 times when some state don't use them at right angles lol.
Danners
November 19, 2011 at 4:13pm
I suspected that the only difference was really the quality of the cable, not the price or if it was "6Gb" rated. Good to know the truth, marketing the more expensive is always a retail tactic and is a big revenue generator for them. Check out monoprice.com for good quality low price cables of all sorts. I too would love to have some time in your lab!
Supermonkey
November 18, 2011 at 6:53pm
Very good information and good picture too.
Bending the cable 15 times is good experiment.
gX15L97bCcaTHvj...
November 16, 2011 at 7:20pm
Thank you, Gordon, for this very informative article. This is why I read Maximum PC.
FascistNation
November 16, 2011 at 3:01pm
These fun 'let's just see' experiments are why I read Maximum PC. Kickass for curiosity.
strangelove9
November 16, 2011 at 9:06am
Thank you for posting this. Like others before me have already remarked, it's increasingly rare to get good hands-on technical journalism these days...
LatiosXT
November 16, 2011 at 7:59am
Digital signals don't care about the cable quality as long as the signal reaches the end in a complete fashion. And of course, meets the electrical requirements for signaling.
Analog signals on the other hand, are affected by cable quality.
ikleinit
November 16, 2011 at 12:40pm
So CAT5E has anttenuation up to 330 feet , is that digital or analog?
Ghost XFX
November 16, 2011 at 6:42am
The only thing that ever tripped me up, was the color of the cable itself =P
jbwhite99
November 16, 2011 at 6:14am
I think this proves the value of Monster cables (at least in this case) - I love it when the store tries to sell you a $30 USB cable to go with a $50 printer.
calicowboy
December 05, 2011 at 2:10pm
i agree data doesnt really get effected by cable leight or quality ,only in audio applications which is why i use monster cable or equivelent
bling581
November 16, 2011 at 10:05am
I know, but that's how they make a lot of money. The know that if you buy a product that requires accessories they can price gouge you because the majority of people will grab it in their store. I bought an HDMI cable on Amazon.com for $8 and saw the exact same cable the next week on sale in Best Buy's weekly add for $50.
h e x e n
November 16, 2011 at 4:11am
I've always wondered about this myself. I always thought they did make a difference so it's nice to know it really doesn't matter all that much. Very interesting.
Pball1224
November 15, 2011 at 10:28pm
Excellent article. I love seeing stuff like this. It's something many system builders have probably thought about, but who would ever take the time or have the resources to test. Great work.
warptek2010
November 15, 2011 at 9:39pm
Very cool article. When I was scouting around the web for parts for my last build, being as anal as I am, I insisted on so called 6Gbs sata cables. Couldn't find any or I got tired looking or something but I eventually just plugged in my older sata cables from the older build I was replacing and lo and behold, didn't seem to make a damn difference. Your article just solidified that experience for me. Thanks Gordon.
RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS
November 15, 2011 at 8:09pm
Cool article, man. I just built my first SATA machine, and had a lot of questions about the cables you just answered. Thanks for putting in the work!!!
don2041
November 15, 2011 at 7:29pm
Thank You Gordon for a MAXPC type of story. I am so sick of seeing maxi pad and iphone crap in a mag that I started to read so that I could make my PC a better experience, all this filler that is being flowing out of MAXPC lately is begining to turn me off of this publication.
sas281gt
November 15, 2011 at 6:30pm
This is great! Just what the mag needs, Mythbusters for computers!
4wsprelude
November 15, 2011 at 6:25pm
I think Cnet had the same conclusion on HDMI cables too. Didn't really matter if it had gold plated to copper plated connectors, it was no difference from one to another.
limitbreaker
November 15, 2011 at 6:59pm
i'm always very skeptical about the difference in HDMI cables, the dumb salesmen are always trying to convince me to get some very expensive ones from brands like Monster. What i wonder about is if there's actually a difference between the HDMI 1.3 rated and the 1.4 for a 6 foot cable.
robluft
January 01, 2012 at 1:26am
Just to clarify when talking about HDMI and cable you've got to be careful about crossing the two. HDMI 1.3/1.4 are specifications, and provide a rating system of Category 1 and 2. Cat 1 is the regular/standard speed and is only rated for 1080i (I've never had issue with outputting 1080p with shorter cables) while Cat 2 is guaranteed to meet 1080p and up. To add to the confusion BOTH categories are manufactured with and without ethernet.
I've already seen cable scams on ebay/amazon so look out.
Supall
November 15, 2011 at 7:18pm
Doesn't 1.4 allow you to do Internet?
Also, I was under the impression that for 6 or 9ft cables, Gold-plated vs copper-plated didn't amount to squat. Its when you start going in the longer cords would you see a difference. Am I wrong in this regard?
robluft
January 01, 2012 at 1:42am
The HDMi 1.4 spec set the ethernet requirement for 100 Mb/s internet connectivity, however, as mentioned above this can come on Category 1 and 2 cables.
FYI - There is no such thing as a "HDMI 1.4 cable", and if you come across a vendor saying they have them run away. It's probibited to market cable this way and you're likely dealing with some unscrupulous company with likely BS products. In fact I've come across many TGTBT-priced "HDMI 1.4 with ethernet cables" that are assumed to be Cat 2 w/ eNet are actually Cat 1 with ethernet.
limitbreaker
November 15, 2011 at 7:27pm
well to the best of my knowledge the 1.3 and 1.4 have the same amount of pins, if that's true than any possible difference would be in the actual copper wire size inside the cable and the protection against inteference around them kind of like when comparing network cables like Cat5e vs Cat6 which doesn't actually make a difference unless the cable is going to be very very long.
X2brute
November 15, 2011 at 4:45pm
this is weird because my mobo came with "SATA II" and "SATA III" cables and they look different, the SATA III cables have a groove down them. good to know i can use them for either
sas281gt
November 15, 2011 at 6:32pm
I think what you have is a sata and an esata. The one that makes an L is a sata and the other is e or external sata.
biggiebob12345
November 15, 2011 at 4:21pm
Copper data cables is copper data cables. Nothing has changed other than the metal locking clips. You could have saved a ton of time by cutting the "6 gbps" cables in half and comparing against the cross sections of the 10 year old cables. Probably identical.
jtrpop
November 15, 2011 at 4:10pm
Great article! Wish I knew this before buying an "official" SATA6 cable.
pinson101
November 15, 2011 at 3:51pm
You could have saved yourselves the time and taken a look at the Puget Systems website.
frizzly
November 15, 2011 at 4:50pm
at least now you know it was tested by someone not trying to sell you something.so you know the results are not bias.
AntonioGarrison
November 15, 2011 at 3:00pm
This is why I come to this magazine daily and at least a few times a day. Articles that are truly tech related.
GenMasterB
November 15, 2011 at 2:11pm
As a PC Technician, I've always wondered if they were up to snuff as I've come across some bad cables myself. Thanks for the article. Needed that info. congrats.
BadCommand
November 15, 2011 at 2:10pm
I've had a different experience. I've found that while older cables may work somewhat consistently, cables just as recent as the 680i platform do not perform consistently enough for long term 6GB SSD usage (I have no 6GB mechanical drives, so cannot comment on that). These cables work fine for absolutely any other sata use without error- even Sata II SSD's. However, I've had enough problems with older sata cables WITH 6GB SSD's that were solved by simply swapping out the cable with a newer cable and from that point on- no problems. BTW, I have taken these same unreliable cables from those 6GB SSD's and redeployed them elsewhere with no problems at all. YMMV.
gordonung
November 15, 2011 at 3:28pm
Do you still have any of those cables? Again, I expected a different outcome but after testing, came to conclusion that it didn't seem to matter on vintage, style, length, color, thickness, connector or "rating." I suspect the bad cables I've run across are just bad cables.
oh, one thing I didn't mention is that on the super long cable tests that failed SATA 6Gb/s testing, they seemed to run fine when moved over to SATA 3Gb/s ports.
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
We introduce Intel's latest class of tablet killers and review 4 of the first Ultra...
This month's issue
Feature
11 Hardware Hacks
Feature
Overclock Your CPU
How-To
Supercharge Your Smartphone
Build It
A Powerful $830 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: HUD-Sporting "Google Glasses" May Hit Streets This Year http://t.co/TDXjJowZ3 hours 16 min ago
- maximumpc: Nvidia Releases WHQL-Certified 295.73 GeForce Drivers http://t.co/NVMWruHO4 hours 49 min ago
- maximumpc: http://t.co/BVVfRA3B4 hours 50 min ago
