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

News SSDs to get faster with SATA Express

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by brumgrunt, 8 Mar 2012.

  1. brumgrunt

    brumgrunt New Member

    Joined:
    16 Dec 2011
    Posts:
    1,009
    Likes Received:
    27
  2. B1GBUD

    B1GBUD ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Accidentally Funny

    Joined:
    29 May 2008
    Posts:
    3,313
    Likes Received:
    411
    If Express can do for SATA what it did for PCI then I'm all in, oh and cheaper SSD's cheesecake!
     
  3. notmeagain

    notmeagain Member

    Joined:
    29 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    559
    Likes Received:
    15
    mmm 2tb/s transfer speeds.

    in raid0....

    My pr0n will load in 0.00003e-12m/s
     
  4. dunx

    dunx ITX is where it's at !

    Joined:
    1 Sep 2010
    Posts:
    463
    Likes Received:
    13
    What "app" needs 2TB/s ? But I'll form an orderly queue...

    dunx
     
  5. Cerberus90

    Cerberus90 Car Spannerer

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    136
    The only practical use I can think of for those sort of speeds would be large scale backup systems. But then, the SSDs wouldn't be larger enough to store enough data for a backup system that needed speeds like that.

    Unless we're going to start getting >10TB drives, it seems a bit pointless.
     
  6. Bauul

    Bauul Sir Bongaminge

    Joined:
    7 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    2,173
    Likes Received:
    38
    2TB/s is fast enough to use a harddrive as RAM. Not that SSDs are fast enough for that yet, but it paves the way for a system design that doesn't need RAM any more.
     
  7. Adnoctum

    Adnoctum Kill_All_Humans

    Joined:
    27 Apr 2008
    Posts:
    486
    Likes Received:
    31
    No more load screens? How am I going to learn how to play a game without reading the tips during the load screens?
    Read the manual? PFFT, what do you think I am, someone with TWO X chromosomes?
     
  8. [-Stash-]

    [-Stash-] New Member

    Joined:
    23 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    <sarcam>NOOOOOOOO!!!! I don't want faster hardware, what a complete and utter waste of time. I don't ever see myself *ever* using anything faster than I have right now. Especially since SSDs are never going to get bigger, or cheaper, because no one needs more space on them or wants to pay less.</sarcam>

    Why do people *always* say stuff along the lines of "what's the point of having something faster than I can use today"? Well silly, so you can create NEW use cases if you have hardware more capable than you need today. I mean who look back to 1995 or so and Myst - today we can freely move around in an environment, prettier than that, in real time. But out current hardware is laughably overkill for running Myst today!

    Bring on the development I say - keep the competition high and we'll keep getting better and better computing at cheaper and cheaper prices!
     
  9. azazel1024

    azazel1024 New Member

    Joined:
    3 Jun 2010
    Posts:
    487
    Likes Received:
    10
    Future proof.

    Current RAM speeds are roughly 20-40GB/sec compared to SATA6Gbps, which is roughly .6GB/sec max real transfer rate.

    So RAM is still close to 100x faster than the fastest SATA interface. NAND flash and other chip based storage doesn't look like they'll be fast enough to be on par with RAM anytime soon, but at the same time opening it up for years and years of future proofing is not a bad thing. PCI-e electrical interconnect might also reduce latency some, though most is related to the NAND itself, which is still massively slower than DRAM.

    However, it doesn't hurt to be able to push a GB/sec or two. Nothing wrong with loading up Windows in 3-5 seconds instead of 20-30 seconds of a fastish SSD now. Speeds up enterprise stuff too. In portable stuff it'd reduce power consumption as well as the processor could drop back to idle faster instead of being at a higher power state processing data as it slowly comes in from mass storage instead of being able to hammer through it as it floods in and then go back to sleep.

    A 30s load time for an app wastes a lot more power than running the CPU at a somewhat higher load and being able to pull it from main storage in 4-8s.
     
  10. ch424

    ch424 Design Warrior

    Joined:
    26 May 2004
    Posts:
    3,112
    Likes Received:
    41
    2TB/sec sounds completely wrong - it'd be 140 PCIe 3.0 lanes... Maybe in 10-15 years, but certainly not any time soon!
     
  11. N17 dizzi

    N17 dizzi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23 Mar 2011
    Posts:
    3,115
    Likes Received:
    312
    What do you consider loading windows?

    Not including POST, my SSD loads a ready to use win 7 in less than 10 seconds now
     
  12. iwod

    iwod New Member

    Joined:
    22 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think they mean 2 Tbps which is more then 3 times faster then current 6 Gbps.

    Most test show we will need many software adjustment to take advantage of these speedy storage.
     
  13. rogerrabbits

    rogerrabbits New Member

    Joined:
    24 May 2011
    Posts:
    577
    Likes Received:
    11
    Progress is good.
     
  14. ch424

    ch424 Design Warrior

    Joined:
    26 May 2004
    Posts:
    3,112
    Likes Received:
    41
    If it's Tb/sec, then 2000/6 = 333 times faster than today's standard
    If it's TB/sec, then (2000*8)/6 = 2666 times faster than today

    I think there must be a typo in the press release or something. They could mean 2GB/sec, as in 16Gbit, which would be plausible!
     
  15. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    12,692
    Likes Received:
    1,967
    Yeah, looks like the release was wrong: SATA-IO says 16Gb/s: http://www.sata-io.org/technology/sataexpress.asp

    I'll stick a correction in.
     
  16. steve30x

    steve30x New Member

    Joined:
    31 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just want a fast and reliable SSD in my rig. I am fed up of listening to the sound of my mechanical HDD inside my computer case. I cant wait until I can buy a 500GB SSD at a resaonable price.
     
  17. kenco_uk

    kenco_uk I unsuccessfully then tried again

    Joined:
    28 Nov 2003
    Posts:
    9,696
    Likes Received:
    308
    16Gb = 2GB bandwidth. So that's nearly 4 x current speeds. Not too shabby.
     
  18. leexgx

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

    Joined:
    28 Jun 2006
    Posts:
    1,351
    Likes Received:
    8
    forgot to correct that for you before

    Sata 6 is 600MB/s not 6GB/s, around 550MB/s useable

    DDR3 is more like 15GB/s ish or 15000 Ish MB/s,
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page