Since it is a FUD article one could presume the article like this:
Why shouldn't we raid 4 vertex drives together, run atto, call it Vertex2 and yet again be the first ones to know something new and hot!
That way everybody will talk about us for another day positively and the next 2 days negatively. But all is good... bad publicity is good publicity, especially when you are famous for it since God knows when...
:)
one word: laptopsQuote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
Whoa, SATA3. SB800 magick?
Of course Promise and Adaptec might have chips supporting it already in their labs, and given how friendly business is I presume they were demoed like that.
awesome.. one SSD = ~4-5x HDD in R0 on a RAID controller :cool:
So they showed a benchmark telling us we will need SATA3.0 to get those speeds. Fair enough, so what did they use to get the speeds shown there? Photoshop?
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
Quote:
Of course Promise and Adaptec might have chips supporting it already in their labs, and given how friendly business is I presume they were demoed like that.
etc.
I call BS.
Even if the drive would be real, I'm sure they woudn't demo it since if they would, all it would achieve is massively reduced sales for current SSD's.
@Macadamia: Am I blind or is that in another article?
What I wrote a few comments above.Quote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
The hardware companies always exchange hardware to do demos/develop with. If you were to adhere to the strict standards release/develop timeframe you'd be getting SATA 3.0 drives in 2011.
Tony called it a simulation. Yeah, I also think it's a usual RAID.Quote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
That's what I get for skipping the last few comments :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
QFTQuote:
Originally Posted by suffocatio
What about the SATA/II 3000MB/s law ?
No, no and no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
Usual RAID 0 with multiple physical drives. Just FUD that had his technical knowledge exceeded by a piece of plywood ..again.
Is this slide wrong (admittedly is does say 6Gb option)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
Is Ibexpeak confirmed as 3.0Gb and not 6.0Gb?
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/7...eaturespg6.jpg
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/1...jpg/1/w800.png
6 Gbit/s = 6/8 = 0.75 GByte/s = 750 MByte/sQuote:
Originally Posted by m^2
:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by biohead
:rofl:
Right. It seems I'm not smarter than FUD writers.
isn't 6 Gbit interface speed? they use 8b/10b encoding for actual data transfer, so that would still equate to 600 MB/s...
Thats true. However this is SATA. And like PCIe its 10bit encoded and not 8bit due to CRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by biohead
So its still 600MB/sec on SATA6.
I think 6 Gbit/s is the theoretical maximum throughput. it will always be less depending on the controller.
edit
ok you two, too much techno mumbo jumbo :p:
:eh:Quote:
Originally Posted by DX_Medic
What would you be talking about?
actually 8b/10b is not the same as CRC, but still it's error detection/correction ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8B/10B_encoding
RAID00? :eek:Quote:
internal quad raid drive
SSD = Suicide Speed Drive?
Single Sex Drive would be more appropriate (aka not bi anymore :p:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank M
Even if it's just a simulation I have high hopes for where this is going. The only thing that actually remains is practical concerns (heat/power/density in a certain size)
If this turns out well at the highend along with the Sandisk at the midend, does Intel have any more SSD business?
Ye, but people usually know what CRC is. So it was easier to quickly explain that way :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by asmodean