I'll put a link in my Signature with PC specs, but I'm still rocking the ASUS P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3. My means for testing between SATA3 and SATA2 speeds is due to my motherboard only having 2x Intel SATA3 ports. Why not use the Marvell PCIe SATA 6Gb/s controller? because it sucks. You are welcome to try it over the Intel ports, but I came to the same result as most, as it is bolded. The Intel SATA2 ports will perform better.
As you will see below, really the only benefit the 2x Corsair drives gain on SATA3 ports, is a bit higher throughput. Benching across utilities and trying real-world load tests, the difference was moot, imo. This resulted in my leaving the RAID0 drives on SATA2 ports, while putting the Samsung 840 Pro 256 GB onto a SATA3 port. The Samsung and it's newer tech just got far more benefits from doing so. Please also keep in mind I got the Corsair drives little over a year ago, while the Samsung is about 2 weeks old to me.
I'd also like to add this info about the benchmarks to follow, as it explains how each benchmark does, or at least used to work. Thank HW Secrets (Corsair Force GT vs Force 3 review)
The Force GT features synchronous memory rather than asynchronous memory, which performs much better when dealing with incompressible data. It is incompressible data transfer rates that are measured in AS SSD and CrystalDiskMark.
In ATTO disk benchmark, however, the drives exhibited a much more similar level of performance as it tests the drives using compressible data. Some of you may be asking yourselves why Corsair uses asynchronous memory in the Force 3 rather than synchronous memory. Well, synchronous memory is more expensive, accounting for the USD 30 price premium that Corsair demands for the Force GT over the Force 3.
Back to the cut of my jib for this thread.
Corsair Force GT:
SandForce SF-2200 SSD controller
Memory: Micron 29F64G08CBAAB NAND
Samsung 840 Pro:
Samsung MDX SSD controller
Memory: 21nm MLC NAND
I'm uploading benchmarks for your review, but the slim of it is that the Corsair drives suffer no real loss in performance short of sustained writes. In my experience the IOPS involved with Read and Write operations make far more of a benefit in respect to sustained data rates. Thus why I have decided to keep my RAID0 Corsair drives on SATA2 ports, while keeping the Samsung on a SATA3 port.
Namely, because the enhancements of the Samsung 256GB drive are beating the Corsair 90GB x2 setup of my RAID0. SSDs also benefit from the larger memory sizes, so that's part of the scenario here as well. When the Samsung was put onto a SATA2 port, it saw large drops across the board. It won priority for my limited Intel SATA3 ports.
Turns out I missed a few 1 to 1 screen caps to match for ATTO, but the drop off should still be apparent in the other programs, as I was seeing 50% drop off on both drives with ATTO.