1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News First SATA 6Gbps chipset is likely bottlenecked

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 4 Jun 2009.

  1. CardJoe

    CardJoe Freelance Journalist

    Joined:
    3 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    11,343
    Likes Received:
    292
  2. Skiddywinks

    Skiddywinks Member

    Joined:
    10 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    929
    Likes Received:
    8
    Hmm, interesting opinion. Some benchmark numbers would be nice.
     
  3. TomH

    TomH And like that... he was gone.

    Joined:
    28 Nov 2002
    Posts:
    756
    Likes Received:
    6
    "...especially if the claim of a performance bottleneck is true."

    Well, it's not hard to work out: a single PCI-E 2.0 lane can carry only 500MiB/sec in either direction. 6Gbps is 750MiB/sec. Even if it doesn't theoretically reach that, it's still likely to be higher than the single PCI-E 2.0 lane can carry.

    Fair play to them, in all honesty. It would only serve to drive the price up, and if you can really afford an SSD that can challenge the rate of 3Gbit SATA, then you shouldn't have an issue purchasing a 6Gbit SATA controller, that sits in a 2x/4x interface. :)
     
  4. Paradigm Shifter

    Paradigm Shifter de nihilo nihil fit

    Joined:
    10 May 2006
    Posts:
    2,062
    Likes Received:
    37
    I'll only really care about SATA 6Gbps (why not call it SATA3? Or does that run too much risk of confusion with SATA2/SATA 3Gbps?) when drives start to saturate the SATA2 bandwidth available. And currently the only things getting even close to that on sustained transfers are ludicrously expensive RAID SSD setups.
     
  5. oasked

    oasked Stuck in the Mud

    Joined:
    24 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    4,015
    Likes Received:
    55
    Not going to be a problem for a while, seeing as the majority of drives don't even get close to SATA II speeds anyway. The limit isn't with the connection, its with the drives themselves.

    If I could afford a large SSD that would max out my SATA II connections, that'd be great - but I know it won't happen for a few years. :)
     
  6. Skiddywinks

    Skiddywinks Member

    Joined:
    10 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    929
    Likes Received:
    8
    That's exactly why. SATA2 and SATA3 are incorrect names that people just made up to coincide with the release version, and such a naming scheme is exactly what SATA-IO didn't want. Officially, they are called SATA 1.5, SATA 3 and SATA 6 so that there is no confusion when it comes to transfer speeds.

    SATA II Misnomer
     
  7. Paradigm Shifter

    Paradigm Shifter de nihilo nihil fit

    Joined:
    10 May 2006
    Posts:
    2,062
    Likes Received:
    37
    Ah, the wonders of the internet - once someone has coined something, if it becomes popular it doesn't matter if it's technically inaccurate! :hehe:

    Of course, the motherboard manufacturers are seriously to blame for that, then - my SATA 3Gbps ports are all labelled 'SATAII' or 'SATA2'. ;)
     
  8. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,812
    Likes Received:
    461
    Well.. my fastest drive doesnt even get close to saturating the current SATA, and seeing as this will not really see the light of day until it makes economic sense on a mainstream board, I'm not bothered right now.

    Just a shame that X58 will no longer be a mainstream/enthusiast board by then.. thanks Intel :(
     
  9. Chocobollz

    Chocobollz New Member

    Joined:
    25 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd say 6 Gibibit/s is their *maximum* theoritical bandwidth, and so that doesn't imply that they will use all of those bandwidth. How fast are the current fastest SSD throughput? 250 Mebibyte/s? If so, that single-lane would be sufficient (at least for now).
     
  10. iwod

    iwod New Member

    Joined:
    22 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting that an HDD interface is faster then PCI Express Single Lane. Where is PCI Express 3.0 anyway?
     
  11. Turbotab

    Turbotab I don't touch type, I tard type

    Joined:
    4 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    1,217
    Likes Received:
    59
    No need to stress, PCI-E 3.0 and SATA 6.0 are ready when they are needed, until then why bump up motherboard prices in such tight market conditions.
     
  12. leexgx

    leexgx CPC hang out zone (i Fix pcs i do )

    Joined:
    28 Jun 2006
    Posts:
    1,341
    Likes Received:
    8
    PCI-e 1x is 256MB/s each way (total 512M/s bandwidth but 256MB/s each way only), so Sata 600 most likely does around 550MB/s, they need to use PCI-e 2x or 4x Link or higher

    made the above before finding the link below

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI-e

    even in full duplex its 512MB/s (256MB/s each way), so its not any faster then SATA 300 bit slower in fact (why you norm find that raid cards are norm 2x or 4x PCI-e cards)

    Edit
    Ops i forgot about PCI-e 2.0 spec it is double the PCI-e 1.0 spec (still need to be PCI-e 2x or 4x thought if its connected via 2.0 spec, as one SSD drive could max it out next year)
     
    Last edited: 4 Jun 2009
  13. TomH

    TomH And like that... he was gone.

    Joined:
    28 Nov 2002
    Posts:
    756
    Likes Received:
    6
    There are such things as port multipliers for SATA, which, when released for SATA 6Gbps, would allow for more than a few SATA 3Gbps drives to utilise a single connection. This is done far more often with SAS drives, but with all that extra bandwidth per lane, it's increasingly likely that manufacturers will begin utilising SATA multipliers too.

    Yes, but what happens when that changes? When there's an SSD that can muster 500MiB/sec? OCZ have recently announced a 3.5" SATA drive, that contains two of their Vertex drives and a RAID0 controller. It won't be long before they are requiring more than a single PCI-E 2.0 lane can carry, and whichever motherboard manufacturer that glazes over this fact is going to have severe amounts of egg on their face (and a tarnished reputation amongst the enthusiast crowd).

    This is already in the 2nd reply, towards the top of the thread. Why did you just repeat it?
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page