http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/ Engadget Comments for Prototype SATA 6Gbps SSD gets benchmarked: yessir, it's hasty http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Dec 13th 2009 12:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Too bad my 5 drive RAID array demolishes its sustained read and write speeds by 200% at 1/10th the cost and 80 times the capacity.

Makes the faster Windows boot due to seek times a moot point.]]>Dec 13th 2009 3:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Dec 13th 2009 4:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Dec 13th 2009 9:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/
How about temperature?
How about energy consumption?
How about size?

Go-go-gadget troll. Think server-farm and YOU LOSE every way conceivable.]]>Dec 13th 2009 12:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/
What I'm trying to say here is, its about freaking time we ditched the copper and focused on optical solutions. I'm not sure how LightPeak will play out, but if Apple gets an early exclusive on the tech it might actually make their underlying hardware relevant.]]>Dec 13th 2009 12:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/
But not at a relevant price.]]>Dec 13th 2009 12:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/You go copper at some point. The problem is how to get all of those signals on the bus and through the necessary chips.

Also, Apple will at most be a month or two early (like they are with Intel CPUs) if LightsPeak hits, otherwise there'd be no traction among the wider world of computing.]]>Dec 13th 2009 12:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Dec 13th 2009 12:31AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/
Uhh.... You realize we can do Hundreds of Gigabytes over copper right? Even 6Gbps Sata doesn't compare to the bandwith in a 16x PCIe 3.0 slot, which is 16GBps or 128Gbps. Copper is fine. Optical makes sense for long distance transmission. But for short interconnects, Copper is more then good enough, for the next decade or two. ]]>Dec 13th 2009 12:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Dec 13th 2009 2:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Dec 13th 2009 12:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Dec 13th 2009 12:14AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/LOL, 6 Gbps is the speed. The speed, not the capacity of the drive. :)]]>Dec 13th 2009 12:45AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/:facepalm: I know that. I am saying that this will retail for so much money that I would only be able to afford a really, really small version of it.]]>Dec 13th 2009 1:40AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/
I understood you and totally agree, it's gonna cost more than an arm and a leg.]]>Dec 13th 2009 2:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Dec 13th 2009 10:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Dec 13th 2009 10:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Dec 13th 2009 12:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Dec 14th 2009 7:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Dec 13th 2009 12:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/No, but when you put them on the SATA bus then the limiter is the bus and not the storage medium.

On the PCI-e bus you get better results, but then you're held up by the fact that your DDR is volatile and thus only good as a temporary cache, whereas most SSD solutions are for long term (1min or more) storage.

And if you think 1 minute is short, consider who would use a RAM-based high speed disk.]]>Dec 13th 2009 12:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bandwidths

It lists bandwidths for all kinds of devices, including SATA and DDR3. ]]>Dec 13th 2009 12:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/
Having looked that over (That chart just got bookmarked!) I did notice that USB 3.0 has a higher theoretical throughput than the new SATA 3.
Now I've never seen a USB device reach its theoretical max yet, but then I really don't know a great way of checking is my HDD is maximizing the throughput os SATA 2 either. And I know what USB is heavily reliant on bus speeds to get data from point A to B, but just pulling numbers out of thin air, it would almost seem that SATA 3 is almost potentially limiting the speed of SSD's versus them using USB 3.0. Any of that right, or am I just off in left field?]]>Dec 13th 2009 9:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Dec 13th 2009 12:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/
You forgot to mention that it is about 175X more expensive than the Seagate HDD. :)]]>Dec 13th 2009 12:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Dec 13th 2009 1:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Dec 13th 2009 1:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Dec 13th 2009 2:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Dec 13th 2009 2:16AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Dec 13th 2009 2:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/
That or x86.. As I like to say, it's high time 1978 died.]]>Dec 13th 2009 1:51AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Wait... You bought an X-25 M and use it with a SATA 1.5 connection? Point?]]>Dec 13th 2009 4:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/
Obviously everyone has different spending limits and purposes. Gamers, for example, might opt for a more powerful graphics card or bigger monitor for a more immersive experience. Ultraportable users, on the other hand, might desire the durability and boot times. But to say that're not useful yet because $/GB HDDs are far superior is missing the point - it's an additional component at this point in time, not a replacement. Like Turbo for start-up times and most of your programs, not a new engine. ]]>Dec 13th 2009 2:29AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/
Or in other words, yes small SSDs can be great value now as an additional component (40GB or 64GB for a boot drive), but a lot of people are waiting until they can use it as a replacement for a basic main drive.]]>Dec 13th 2009 4:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Dec 13th 2009 10:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Dec 13th 2009 10:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Dec 13th 2009 2:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/12/prototype-sata-6gbps-ssd-gets-benchmarked-yessir-its-hasty/Dec 13th 2009 8:08PM