SSDs have maxed out SATA connections, so in my opinion, there's no point in getting a "faster" SSD if it's on SATA still. And honestly, in reality, "faster" may not mean much anyway depending on the job. Loading times include not only throwing stuff from secondary memory to RAM, but initializations. For instance, if on boot after settling Windows only chews up 1.5GB of RAM, how come my load time from a blazing fast 550MB/s SSD isn't 3 seconds for Windows (it's usually 10-15)?
Storage is one of those things I don't like to just upgrade based on objective storage performance alone. It's so variant on overall system performance (and I'm not the kind of person who wants everything to load instantly as possible) that I kind of stop caring about it. Sure, I like an SSD for my system, but only because that's the only place I've seen storage performance really work well in. Hell, people are talking about using NAS and Thunderbolt connections for workstation storage. The former is slow as hell. The fastest economical network you can get at the moment is 1Gbps, a far cry from 6Gbps SATA.
In other words... yes, I want my storage to last longer, not perform better (necessarily).
Well for SSD drives to get faster that they are now you will need something other than 6Gbps Sata connection as you state that is already max out. I was aware of that when I wrote the message. My first SSD was a OCZ Vertex-Plus which is just a little faster that my 500 GB WD Black enterprise BTW: I'm still use it. I just upgrade to 2 Intel 335 180 which were on sale for $120.00 each . I get so tired of reading reviews were all they care about is how fast Windows Boots I could care less. I what to know if they R/W at the speed the company claim also match the OPS that claimed . I have the Intel setup as a Raid 0 array and getting around 1100 MB/s reads and 1000 MB/s write.