SATA Spec 3.0 Now Official; 6 Gb/sec. Speeds

[apmyhr]

[citation][nom]jaragon13[/nom]I have a feeling this is why we have not seen the 800 series AM3 motherboards yet... I hope Intel integrates this into the P55.. they probably won't unless AMD offers it with their 800 series mobos.[/citation]
I would be very suprised if we actually saw MB's with SATA III anytime soon. Just because the spec has been finalized doesn't mean manufacturers are ready to build it. Just look at USB 3.0, the spec was finished last year in November or something, and there is still no USB 3.0 devices or MB's in sight. That makes me a very sad Panda 🙁

 

[elbert]

Wish SATA 3.0 forced produced makers into daisy chaining. Serial ATA International Organization used daisy chaining in version 1.0 to get fast adoption but without product support is impossible. With PATA we could at least use 2 device per connection.

Someone should sue to block this crap until it requires daisy chaining for a produced to say SATA 3.0 compliant.

 

[FlayerSlayer]

Except that my 2-drive RAID-0 array still only hits about 160 MB/s, a far cry from the 300 MB/s supported by SATA-II. A coworker has hit the cap with three drives, but barring high end SSD ($$$) or 3+ drive RAID-0, this won't help one or two drive configurations. Heck, even 12x BluRay is only 54 MB/s, so it's not going to affect optical drives in the near future either.

Very cool, but really this is more a matter of futureproofing than anything that helps us now... unless you can somehow afford to RAID SSD's.

 

[tenor77]

Very cool, but really this is more a matter of futureproofing than anything that helps us now

It's cool, but I'm not even worried about futureproofing on my next build. It may be awhile before this is necessary or practical.

 

[dman3k]

I will always support a faster way for my pr0n to reach my monitor.

 

[plbyrd]

The speeds of a RAID 0 are only limited to the SATA standard if the said RAID is presented to the SATA controller as a single drive. If the SATA controller is in charge of the RAID, then the bandwidth available is the sum of the bandwidth for each channel the drives are on.

The only reason we are using crappy flash memory for these SSD drives is because of SATA. What is needed is a new drive interface that runs at PCI Express eight lane speeds that would allow for 3.5" bootable SSDs that contain many GB of battery backed DDR memory. This would be far more efficient than the current drives. The drive could have matching flash ram to maintain the state of the DDR memory in the event that the battery dies (though the battery should be rechargable and be charged by the computer as it's running).

 

[marraco]

A RAID of SSD can saturate SATA 3 speeds today. At the time motherboards with SATA 3 reach massive market, SSD will be far beyond that speed, so SATA will have a short and worthless life.

It will be replaced for PCI/PCI-Express cards

 

[Guest]

Why go sata if you can go Minipcie?

 

[marraco]

[citation][nom]plbyrd[/nom]The speeds of a RAID 0 are only limited to the SATA standard if the said RAID is presented to the SATA controller as a single drive.
...[/citation]

And some SSD do exactly that.

 

[grieve]

[citation][nom]plbyrd[/nom]The only reason we are using crappy flash memory for these SSD drives is because of SATA. What is needed is a new drive interface that runs at PCI Express eight lane speeds that would allow for 3.5" bootable SSDs that contain many GB of battery backed DDR memory.[/citation]

You had me @ hello....

 

[norbs]

your probably not going to see much of an improvement with this standard but it will improve cache read and writes. Just because things don't write directly to the disk at 6Gb/sec doesn't mean the drive won't benefit from the extra bandwidth. Sending command and reading/writing from cache will be improved.

 

[Kill@dor]

Toms should have a review on SSD's vs 3.0GBs/sec drives...unless i missed it. Also, i'd like to see how the raptors are doing against the SSD's

 

[sonofliberty08]

[citation][nom]Kill@dor[/nom]Toms should have a review on SSD's vs 3.0GBs/sec drives...unless i missed it. Also, i'd like to see how the raptors are doing against the SSD's[/citation]
yeah , how about the SAS 6Gb/s 15000Rpm 2.5" HDD too , i hope there will have 15000Rpm SATA 6Gb/s for PC too soon .

 

[Gin Fushicho]

YES! Cant wait! =D

 

[Guest]

And this is the results of being uninformed. Disk based drives in most cases will fail within 5-10 years. Most SSD's are rated to last much longer, as well as the ability to have on the fly data protection. With warranty times the often the same, there's absolutely no reason to hold off on SSD aside from costs/space requirements.

Ummm...A good ol' Seagate would outlast a SSD hands-down. I have five Seagate drives, aged a little less than a year to 15 years old. None had any problems at all, not even the rare little read/write flaw. Now, my ever-disposable pile of flash drives, which are properly cared for, start to have read/write problems in about a year. Keep in mind SSDs and flash drives use the same technology. I'll always stick to disk hard drives--Seagate ones--I don't care if it's 2030. I'll still have my Seagates.