Like xbeater says, this is a (very) simple (rather expensive) USB3 enclosure.
I've been doing this with my old notebook and desktop drives since well before SATA existed and have a bunch of old 40 and 60 gig drives from dead notebooks in cases for those times when a flash drive isn't large enough.
[citation][nom]cookoy[/nom]by this time i think all new laptops should have at least a usb 3.0 port but they don't[/citation]
Yh, well, at least we have backward compatibility.
Besides, I just boughta 1TB 2.5 inch USB3 Drive yesterday, from WD, nifty little thing, goes fast on the USB3 (~ 100 read / ~ 80 write ) from what I see. Cost me just 75 Euro new, so I fail to see the point of these enclosures. Few years ago it was cheaper, but now, not so much.
So, you have a bunch of sensationalist graphs of 2 different benchmarks showing AMD getting stomped. They eventually admit halfway through the article that one of the benchmarks is compiled with ICC, Intel's own compiler, but fail to admit that the other is ALSO compiled with ICC. However, nobody with a life is going to read the entire article, so the point is that you'll skim over the graphs and see AMD getting stomped, and be brainwashed into thinking that Xeon has a real-world performance advantage over Magny-Cours Opterons, which it does not.
@jsc: Yeah, but for $20 more you can buy a USB3 enclosure that comes with an actual 500GB drive in it. This article makes the ridiculous assumption that you have a decent 2.5" drive laying around and would want to invest $30 more in it.
I don't know about you, but the only 2.5" HDDs I have laying around are crappy old 40GB ones that couldn't saturate USB2 bandwidth anyways. The only thing lamer than that enclosure is this article.