Windows 7 - 2 drive ssd choice

For a second drive I'm looking at ssd 200 to 300 gig but I don't know the plus and minus of ssd II and a ssd III for this purpose. Well the price is a lot different.
My primary drive is a series 510 Intel 120 gb sate III.

Why do you want a 2nd SSD in your machine? Are you intending to use it for storage? Because for things like movies, pictures, music, and Internet downloads...I don't see where the extra speed of the SSD makes a substantial improvement. I mean, if you are going to listen to a 4 minute MP3 file...you don't really need to load the entire thing in 0.00001 seconds. 0.02 seconds from a standard hard drive would be just fine.

I would vote with pparks. At this time, SSDs make a lot of sense for the OS and little sense for data. The gain you get for data storage is very expensive. And for the OS, a 2nd generation SSD is sufficient.

Trust me. You won't notice the difference for user files.

In general you are absolutely right. For the average system there is probably very little gain. But I think that you would notice a difference e.g. with video editing/encoding if you have a very powerful CPU.

I noticed the difference when I compare my desktop (duo core CPU) where I edit/encode to a HDD with my Vaio laptop (i7 CPU) that has one Vertex2 for everything. The time difference for video work is about 4:1. I am sure some is because of the more powerful CPU but some is probably also because of the use of the SSD on the Vaio.

agree, buy a good 7200 rmp hdd for any secondary drives.

whs, you need to remember that for video editing rather everything is on one drive or on different drives the temp files for encoding are stored on c. meaning once you select say xyz.avi to convert to xyz.mkv the avi is going to be temporarily stored on c, so no you are not going to see a performance difference from having one drive for everything to having multiple drives for your files. as for the performance difference your talking about i have a core2duo e8400 system, and without ever running one i know a i3 550 system will out preform my current system by at least double, so by that a i7 system will simply knock the socks off any core duo system.

I agree to that for uses such as you are referring to. But my post was referring to normal user files. I have all my user files on a 7200 RPM drive. I never have to wait, they open instantly.

An SSD is overkill for an average users storage/user file purposes,
better to buy one or two latest gen 1 or 2 TB HDD for the fraction of the money
you'd pay for an SSD.

I think it's an effect of both the i7 & SSD on the time difference.

Thanks for all the inputs. I'm looking ahead, maybe to far. Because of price it wouldn't be the time to buy another ssd. I talked to my Intel dealer (who just came back from one of those big shot seminars) and I was told when all the ssd sata II were sold they will be gone forever and only ssd sata III will be make. I had hopes that ssd sata II would drop in price. Maybe not though. I was also told that all manufactures of ssd are not able to keep up with demand at the present time. I'm still trying to balance the price of a ssd as a second drive and the need of performance. I don't do any video editing or things like that. I have a fairly fast system and don't want something to slow it down within reason.

The new Intel 320 drives are sataII. The only SATAIII drives made by Intel were the 510 model.