It wasn't until the other day that I actually realized, I was barely paying attention to differences between SATA II and SATA III SSDs. I rarely benchmark any of the first generation drives, there is no sense, because the differences between the then and now are numerically miles apart. On the other hand without numerical statistics the user experience is relatively unnoticeable, or is it? I normally use SSDs in my test benches, it doesn't matter if they are SATA II or SATA III, as long as they work and I can perform my scheduled tasks. Last week one of my older SATA III SSDs bit the dust and having scheduled a live benchmarking webcast I needed to format and get another ready in four hours by luck of the draw it happened to be one of my first SATA II SSDs. The nature of webcast was to benchmark a new video game head to head. While getting everything ready I noticed that the system with the SATA II SSD was lagging behind every time I started the game. It seemed like an eternity but actually it was only eight seconds. So much for user experience, head to head the difference is noticeable.