Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

SATA 4, 12 Gb/s (SATAe 16 Gb/s) for SSD's?

Tags:
  • SSD
  • SATA
  • Storage
  • Product
Last response: in Storage
February 16, 2012 10:30:56 PM

I'm just curious if there's any idea when SATA 4, 12 Gbit/s (SATAe 16 Gbit/s) might be coming out, at least for Solid State Drives (SSD's) ?

I've seen no mention of it at all over at Serial ATA - maybe somebody could ask them? There's no mention of SATA 4 at Wiki either - Serial ATA.

Is SATA 4 even in the pipe? SSD's seem to be making some great strides so, it seemed like SATA 4 would be coming at some point.

Added edit: SSDs to get faster with SATA Express = 16Gb/s

More about : sata satae ssd

February 16, 2012 10:41:54 PM

SATA 3 just came out just use RAID 0
m
-2
l
February 16, 2012 10:47:40 PM

Wiki: "The full 3.0 standard was released on May 27, 2009"

"Solid-state drives have already saturated SATA 3"
m
0
l
Related resources
February 16, 2012 10:59:57 PM

I just found this quote from

Quote:
Enabling Higher Speed Storage Applications with SATA Express

"SATA Express is a new specification under development by SATA-IO that combines SATA software infrastructure with the PCI Express® (PCIe®) interface to deliver high-speed storage solutions. SATA express enables the development of new devices that utilize the PCIe interface and maintain compatibility with existing SATA applications. The technology will provide a cost-effective means to increase device interface speeds to 8Gb/s and 16Gb/s.

Solid state (SSDs) and hybrid drives are already pushing the limits of existing storage interfaces. SATA Express will provide a low-cost solution to fully utilize the performance of these devices. Storage devices not requiring the speed of SATA Express will continue to be served by existing SATA technology. The specification will define new device and motherboard connectors that will support both new SATA Express and current SATA devices.

SATA-IO expects the SATA Express specification to be completed by the end of 2011."
m
0
l
a c 415 G Storage
February 16, 2012 11:08:27 PM

600MByte/sec per drive is pretty a pretty high speed. If you really have an application that needs higher throughput than that then your choices are to use RAID or to use a bus-connected SSD. SATA-Express will provide a standardized protocol for bus-connected SSDs, but you can already buy them if you need them.

Remember that the lion's share of the benefits from an SSD are due to it's very fast access times, and you get those even if your drive is connected to a slow bus.
m
0
l
February 16, 2012 11:16:53 PM

Okay. I was asking in part because my current work computer was built in 2004 and I'm just waiting for Ivy Bridge to be released for my next build. It would be sweet if SSD's started coming out with SATA 4.0 (12 g/s) by the time I'm ready.

I'll have to admit that I don't know anything about raid at this time.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
February 16, 2012 11:55:25 PM

The standard is the specifications. This comes out before the products so manufacturers know what they need to make to have it compatible. Then the manufacturers have a production cycle of the products which is usually a year(design, testing, redesigns or bug fixes, manufacture, distribute). Sata 3 products didn't come out til mid 2010. And didn't become widespread til just last year with sb having native support. SATAIO released a roadmap saying 3.2 (which is sata express) this year but don't expect products til next year and widspread use til the year after that.

If you want more speed aside from raid, there are pcie ssds. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sata-6gbps-performa... But other than sequential (large file transfers) there is no benefit even from sata 2 to 3.
m
0
l
February 17, 2012 1:45:36 AM

Even 3Gb SATA is very fast. The real-world difference for a SATA-III SSD running on SATA-II is not usually noticeable to a human sitting in front of the monitor. The same will likely hold for faster versions of SATA. These things don't happen in isolation. Every component of a PC has to work together to provide the user experience. Usually raising one component to extreme perfromance levels has little influence on normal operations if the other parts are not similarly enhanced.
m
0
l
February 17, 2012 1:25:10 PM

I was wondering if the new PCIe 3.0 support from Intel might help SATA 4.0 along or at least SATA Express offering an "increase device interface speeds to 8Gb/s and 16Gb/s," quoted above.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
February 17, 2012 5:01:52 PM

“The SATA Express specification provides SSD and hybrid drive manufacturers the advantages of performance and scalability enabled by PCIe 3.0" They were making it with pcie 3.0 in mind, it was released in 2010 after all. Even so pcie is backwards compatible so other than a speed decrease from using pcie 2.0 it shouldn't really affect development. Don't expect sata 4 til like 2015 if it isn't replaced with a better connection.
m
0
l
February 17, 2012 6:07:38 PM

Quote:
SATA-IO Reveals SATA Express, µSSD Interfaces

August 10, 2011

"The SATA Express specification provides SSD and hybrid drive manufacturers the advantages of performance and scalability enabled by PCIe 3.0 – which is available now – and the ubiquity of SATA," said Mladen Luksic, SATA-IO president. "We expect the SATA Express specification to be completed by the end of 2011."


I'll repeat that last sentence: "We expect the SATA Express specification to be completed by the end of 2011."

So, those specs are due anytime now but, we won't actually see any new SATA Express products for ... who really knows? I suppose you may be right about "2015" but, I suppose with any luck it could be much sooner.

I was just reading: Best SSDs For The Money: January 2012
m
0
l
a b G Storage
February 17, 2012 6:40:49 PM

I said sata 3.2 comes out this year. I fail to see why you repeated that sentence. Did you misunderstand when I said "it was released in 2010" that was referring to pcie 3.0.

Btw your link is wrong. I see you are doing research, that's a good thing. I took a look at your systems thread, for your workload sequential isn't what you're doing anyway. You'll want to get the biggest ssd you can get, not the fastest. Although as I'm sure you have noticed, the larger ones are the fastest. I'm surprised no one posted in it but I would think it is because the purchase time frame is a big issue.
m
0
l
February 17, 2012 7:45:29 PM

Ahh, I see now, you did mention SATA 3.2, where is a link for that roadmap?

I do have a thread, New GAMER/work PC Build $1,800

I'm just some old guy trying to organize the best system I can with money also in mind. I'd love to have a huge SSD but, price is the issue there. I will probably have to go with a raid set up to mix my one year old 500g HD with a new SSD for now. I was considering going with a 120g for my OS (Win 7, 64-bit) along with my other programs such as Adobe CS 6 when it comes out soon. I've never had an SSD before so, I'm interested in what I need to know about them.

I'd consider adding a 750g or 1t SSD-PCIe card in a few years when the price goes way down.

I figure you're probably right, I didn't have much input in my thread probably because the products I'm waiting for aren't out just yet. I'm waiting for Ivy Bridge and I'll just get what's available at that time. I'm trying to future proof as much as possible because I tend to keep my systems until they die. So, I'm relying on the knowledge and experience of the people here for advice.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
February 18, 2012 2:24:53 AM

You do not raid hdd+ssd unless it is raid 1 which is a mirror array for backup purposes. I don't think you should do raid 0 which is the one that increases speeds. Also you will want identical drives in a raid 0 array.

I found the roadmap on the link you posted: at the bottom is additional resources. http://www.sata-io.org/technology/sataexpress.asp All the documents came out aug 2011 and they all say end of 2011 is the release date but the roadmap shows 2012.

As with other ports, there will probably be expansion cards for pcs without the connection. So this isn't an issue about future proofing.
m
0
l
a c 415 G Storage
February 18, 2012 4:30:07 AM

josejones said:
I'm just some old guy trying to organize the best system I can with money also in mind.
Do you actually have a system with an SSD in it right now? If not, then don't go nuts trying to get the very absolute most bestest SSD system ever - just buy a decent mainstream SSD as a single drive and install the OS onto it. Even better if you can get one large enough to install your applications onto as well, at least the ones that you use most often.

The difference between systems on an HDD vs SSD is huge. The difference between a system based on a slow SSD vs a fast SSD is very small by comparison.

There have been a number of firmware problems with some of the bleeding-edge SSDs, so my recommendation is to don't go crazy over performance and instead get a tried-and-true drive that's proven itself in the marketplace.
m
0
l
February 18, 2012 6:11:21 PM

k1114, okay I didn't even know exactly what raid was. I've never done it before. What's the best way to set up a new SSD with a 1 year old 500g HD, on a new system?

I'll probably get the newest motherboard I can when Ivy Bridge comes out so, at least a 79. If anything comes out newer than the 79 when Ivy Bridge comes out I'll probably get that instead. Or I suppose a 79 rev 2 might be okay, we'll see.
m
0
l
February 18, 2012 6:13:05 PM

No sminlal, I do not currently have an SSD. In fact, I've never had an SSD before. I love the idea of no moving parts and long lifespan. However, I don't like surprises when it comes to electronics so, I want to know as much as necessary about SSD's before I get one. I do perform all the basic maintenance such as defrag and 'clean disk' etc.. I really try to keep my systems in top shape best I can.

My current system from 2004 runs quite well; it's simply too outdated to keep up with the new next generation stuff like Ivy Bridge for example.

current system:

OS: XP SP3
Mobo: MSI RS480M
CPU: AMD 1.6 Sempron (upgraded to 2.1 Athlon two years ago)
RAM: 512 (upgraded to 2g two years ago)
HD: WD 80g (WD 500g last year)
PSU: 250w
GPU: Onboard; ATI Radeon Xpress 200 Series (LOL)

Everything I've heard about SSD's is in agreement with your comment. I'm considering getting a 120g or 128g for my OS (Win 7) and all other programs. But, to cut costs I'll probably still use my 1 year old 500g HD too. I'm trying to learn how to set that up properly. So much has changed since 04, LOL.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
February 19, 2012 4:20:53 AM

79? Are you talking about x79 as that is socket 2011, the high end socket for SBE and later IBE. IB's new best chipset will be z77 which is socket 1155, same as SB. For ssd + hdd, there is no setup, you just install the os on the ssd as you said and have the hdd plugged in for extra space.
m
0
l
a c 394 G Storage
February 19, 2012 12:01:11 PM

JoseJones, you've got some of the best people already talking to you, but I'm going to throw in my two cents. Unless you have a specific need that a standard setup won't fill, go with a standard setup. They became standard for a reason: they make efficient use of your dollar, they are more reliable than more complicated setups, and they fly like a rocket unless you are doing something like rendering HD graphics for Pixar.

A "standard" configuration these days is an SSD for your OS and installed programs, a big HDD for data, and external drives for backups. I'm running one with a motherboard so old that my SSD is plugged into an SATA II port, choking its theoretical throughput, and its speed amazes me.

Let us know if these systems are going to do anything particularly intensive, like video processing or massive database support or playing Crysis III, and we can make specific suggestions.
m
0
l
February 19, 2012 4:48:10 PM

Indeed k1114, I was referring to x79 socket 2011. I was just assuming the x79 was better since it's newer and has a higher number (LOL). You are recommending the z77 socket 1155 instead. I'm always open for suggestions especially since I have no experience with any of the new stuff out now.

SSD+HD, sounds like it couldn't be any easier. Simply start with the new SSD then connect the HD afterward. Piece of cake, thanks.
m
0
l
February 19, 2012 4:52:58 PM

WyomingKnott, I think you're right, the standard setup regarding the SSD+HD should suffice just fine for us.

We have a business at home where we now have to do everything ourselves. By that I mean we were already building/updating our own websites and creating/designing our own products but, our good friend who made our product description videos for us passed away just 6 months ago. So, we now have to make good quality (HD) videos as well. We also create our own power-point lectures too. We now actually need to be able to create our own DVD's too. So, we need to be able to do fairly intensive HD video rendering when we need to (wonder which GPU is best for us).

We've been using Adobe CS 4 but want to get the CS 6 when we can afford it. I had to upgrade our 04 system to 2g of ram (2g is max for the mobo) just to meet the minimum requirements for the Adobe CS 4. It works but it's slow at everything.

We've been really fortunate that our 04 system has lasted this long (8 years). The HD did die on us last year but, the system just keeps going. She has a bad habit of leaving the computer on all night too. Our computer is on all day every day. I'd love for this new system to be able last 8 years as well.

LOL, we really need this money for a new car to replace our 95 car with over 200k miles but, since we work at home and need the computer for work that's where our interest is at right now.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
February 20, 2012 12:33:56 AM

IB coming out in april is 1155 (which is what I thought you were waiting for). X79 is SBE and which came out last december but it is the latest and greatest right now. 2011 will also be IBE coming in Q4. It's more about your budget for which one to get. IB will have a lot more bang/buck and is probably what will be in your budget.
m
0
l
February 25, 2012 6:14:59 AM

josejones: I'll throw in my 10 cents for you, having come from a 3d animation/ video editing/ dvd-authoring background.

Doesn't look much like SATA4 is anywhere on the visible horizon, which dissapoints me too, as it's clear SSDs could go even further, tomorrow!, given the right connectivity. However, unless you have a particularly large budget, you aren't going to be able to set your system up soley with SSDs anyway, given you're going to be outputting large numbers of high resolution image files for your projects.

RAID is more hassle than it's worth, in my opinion, considering that Windows 7 supports SSD TRIM (removes deleted files from your SSD as you delete them, rather than the SSD having to erase before write when accessing previously written-to sectors) only in non-RAID configuration. Plus the performance from an SSD flattens that of a HDD, even without RAID. I've only ever had SATA2 SSDs (with maximum read speeds of 270MB/s), and these still blow me away. Current Intel 520 series SSD's offer transfers of 550MB/s across the SATA3 interface. With SSDs, don't go skimpy on size. Obviously you'll have a tight budget, but you'll want to get a 520 series with a minimum of 120GB size - that way you'll be able to install Windows 7 x64 (25-30GB depending on version) all of your other software apps, and still have space for placement of your project source files. Not to mention furure-proofing as best you can. The 520 series 180GB is what I would buy, if I was upgrading right now.

You can experience large performance gains in video editing/graphics applications, just by spreading tasks across multiple disk drives. It's not healthy for SSDs to 1. defragment them (as every erase/write cycle takes another chip of the lifespan of the cell, and defragmentations are erase/write heavy - plus there's no performance gain, as an SSD can read from any cell with the same super-low latency) and 2. use them for the Windows "Page File" or Photoshop "Scratch Disk" as these are both forms of virtual memory and again, involve plenty of erase/write to a small portion of the disk.

Ideally, you'd have 3 disks in your setup:
1. Your 120GB (or greater) Intel 520 series SSD - accomodating Windows, program files, project source files, and uncompressed video files you want to review with smoothest possible playback (in essence, everything which your computer will be reading from, if possible)
2. Your existing 500GB HDD (Create an initial 10GB partition, and set this as the volume for your Windows Page File. Then with the remaining space create a second partition, which you can use for storage of project files not currently in use, or projects too large to fit on your SSD, etc.
3. A new 2TB HDD (2TB offers the best price vs. size ratio at present). Buy Western Digital rather than Seagate, Samsung etc. WD delivers far superior accoustics and temperature regulation - I've been frustrated by every Seagate or other brand disk I've ever owned by the pulsating harmonic hums or over-pronounced read chirps they produce. (Create an initial 20GB partition, on which you'll place Photoshop's "Scratch Disk". Then create a second partition with the remaining space which you'll use to output/write to from all apps, and hold your rendered images.) WD Green drives offer best possible accoustics, but Black drives provide maximum HDD performance - I'll let you decide.

With this setup, when you're using Photoshop, Windows will be accessing the 500GB for it's virtual memory. Whilst Photoshop itself will be accessing the 2TB, ie: neither will be hindering the other's performance. Doesn't really matter which drive you keep your image files on, as the actually image information is only accessed during file open / file save, etc.

I've seen performance gains of 30 - 50% when reading source files from disk A, and outputting completed frames to disk B, as opposed to reading source and outputting to one disk A. As you know HDD's operate with a needle, which can only be in one place at a time, so it's ideal to have one disk doing just one thing reading or writing.

I can't tell you how to set up your files, but as an example, for best throughput, if I was using Maya, I'd want my source files, textures, scenes on disk A, and my output directory on disk B. Or with compositing software such as After Effects, again I'd want my source image sequences on disk A and my output ones on disk B. If you can have the source files on the SSD, that's a bonus as the Windows Page File can operate individually on the 500GB disk, you're reading from the SSD, and completed frames are outputting to the 2TB disk - none of the operations are stacked onto a single disk, so the pipeline is free-flowing and quick.

Coming back to reality, if I was to build your system right now, I'd get:

Intel i5 2500 (it's the best unit for price/performance ratio at present)
Transcend 4GB DDR3 x 2 (or x 4 if you feel you need 16GB of RAM) (I find Transcend very cost efficient and highly reliable)
ASUS P8Z68-M (7 SATA ports, 2 x PCIe x16, max 32GB RAM, etc. Or whatever good, low cost, feature rich motherboard you can get your hands on in your country)
Intel 520 series 180GB SATA3 550MB/s SSD
Western Digital 2TB Caviar Black (You'll want this now that you've taken over doing the videos and DVD work.)

Obiously once Ivy Bridge is out, that changes the recipe slightly. But I believe Intel 520 series and WD Black 2TB will still be your best storage solutions at that time.

Very important thing to consider is bargain hunting. Local is often worst in terms of price. I notice almost every company is a reseller. Try and hunt down the wholesaler in your area. One place will generally charge 5% more or less than the next, which gives away where they sit in the chain. In my country Alphacity.co.nz which I've used frequently is offering the best prices. Better still than another local wholesaler. They trade overseas as TigerDirect I believe.

If you don't get what I'm going on about with the different tasks allocated to different disks, please let me know and I'll try to explain it better.
m
1
l
a b G Storage
February 25, 2012 5:38:10 PM

30%-50% is stretching it and it is very situational. Photoshop won't really benefit other than start up times, it puts the current open project in ram. 3D rendering is cpu(and gpu depending on renderer) heavy and even a hdd sits idle most of the time; again files are in the ram. Video encoding will be ~10% (you can google benchmarks) which will probably be the only render time to benefit. Max speed is sequentials which don't translate into real world performance because you are never reading just one file. And also taking steady state into account you would hardly be hitting 400 sequential. The randoms are not even hitting sata 2's max which is why there is no performance difference as shown in the earlier benchmark linked. A ssd will no doubt help workflow but don't expect big render time differences compared to a cpu/ram upgrade, or even a gpu when using gpu acceleration.

You shouldn't hear your hdd, I've used, toshiba, samsung, seagate, wd, maxtor, hitachi, pretty much all of them and never had any sound issues(or differences really). There is no need to make a separate partition on the hdd for page file. Even with a $1200 budget, you should have no issue fitting an i7, 16gb ram, 120gb ssd.
m
0
l
a c 394 G Storage
February 25, 2012 11:51:43 PM

I have an odd footnote to this conversation. On the topic of advanced interfaces, I just tripped over the documentation and cables for some equipment I bought a while ago. I bought two fiber NICs, connected my computer to my wife's with fiber cables, and did speed tests - of Gigabit networking. Nowadays, of course, every machine comes with that working over the same cables we used for the two previous generations.

The point is that what's cutting-edge or future today will be old hat soon enough.
m
0
l
March 3, 2012 2:29:30 PM

If you read that article, it says that any product Adaptec is likely to use with that new PCIe 3.0 Raid-on-Chip will still use 6.0Gb/s SATA/SAS interfaces, the difference is that it can support up to 24 ports, hence the need for that much bandwidth.
m
0
l
April 2, 2012 11:45:39 PM

Quote:
"Newer standards won't matter for HDD, but SSD drives could always use more bandwidth. The advantage of SATA Express is twofold. First, the bandwidth is greater, in comparison with SATA 6Gbps. 16Gbps is the equivalent of a PCIe 2.0 x4 connection, or what powers a RevoDrive 3 X2. Therefore, with this type of connection, you could build drives with 2GB/s reads and writes. Second, the latency would be even less, having a direct connection to the CPU instead of having to go through the South Bridge or a SATA controller and all that logic.

Why is this beneficial?

Faster virus scans.
Faster movement of files.
Faster boot.
Faster loading of applications.

These times are not instant now so cutting away about 3/4 of the time could be quite beneficial. With SSD's, they are held back not from the flash itself, but from the connection. That is why we are seeing so much growth in the PCIe SSD market. "

“We expect the SATA Express specification to be completed by the end of 2011.”

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=1168536&mpage=1&pr...


So this new SATA Express 16Gb/s standard for SSD's could potentially be out in time for Intel's Haswell CPU?
m
0
l
a b G Storage
April 3, 2012 1:07:15 AM

No, this was the first thing we talked about; look in my first post. The specs are released so products are all compatible. And according to the article you posted just before.
Quote:
DRAMeXchange predicts that commercial implementations won't appear until 2014 at the absolute earliest.
m
0
l
January 17, 2013 11:44:18 AM

Thunderbolt seems to be the "new thing" with transfer rates of 10Gb/s.My assumption is that this is going to replace USB and probably SATA.But who knows.Still to early to tell.

One thing that troubles me is that if they are tapping into the PCI-E that might mean stealing bandwidth from Crossfire/SLI setups.I'd like some clarification on that if anyone can.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
January 17, 2013 4:03:07 PM

Tb is being seen as an external connection. I'd expect it to replace usb and firewire but elsewhere is still up in the air. Sata is slower than other connections available now but is still the standard. If you wanted the utmost speed on one device, then people would get a pcie ssd.

It will take pcie lanes, but just as tb is now, it shouldn't affect sli/cf. IB has 16 3.0 lanes and z77 has another 8 2.0 lanes. 990fx is 16+6. You can search all the current tb mobos are still 8/8.
m
0
l
February 28, 2013 1:10:34 AM

SATA express is basically done and devices are expected towards the end of this year (I was just searching for it, saw it all over — techreport was the last site I was on that said that).
m
0
l
April 28, 2014 7:21:34 AM

So, we did end up getting the Ivy Bridge CPU in August of 2012. It's such a better system over the old PC from 2004 ; ) :

CPU: Ivy Bridge i7 3770
MB: Gigabyte z77 UD5
RAM: Mushkin 8g DDR3 1600
SSD: Mushkin Enhanced Chronos Deluxe DX 240g
HD: 1T WD Black

---

SATA Express 3.2 16Gb/s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SATA_Express

April 17, 2013 - Report: Intel 9-Series Will Feature 10-16 Gb/s SATA Express
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/SATA-Intel-Express-Sto...

Nov 13, 2013 Report: Intel's 9-series chipsets won't support SATA Express
http://techreport.com/news/25649/report-intel-9-series-...

Dec 20, 2013 - ASUS is ready for SATA Express - Early tech and performance preview
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/5974/asus-is-ready-fo...
m
0
l
May 3, 2014 10:43:16 PM

josejones said:
I'm just curious if there's any idea when SATA 4, 12 Gbit/s (SATAe 16 Gbit/s) might be coming out, at least for Solid State Drives (SSD's) ?

I've seen no mention of it at all over at Serial ATA - maybe somebody could ask them? There's no mention of SATA 4 at Wiki either - Serial ATA.

Is SATA 4 even in the pipe? SSD's seem to be making some great strides so, it seemed like SATA 4 would be coming at some point.

Added edit: SSDs to get faster with SATA Express = 16Gb/s


SataExpress is the new sata standard. There will be no sata 4.
SataExpress uses a new type of connector that is backwards compatible with current sata standards.
If you curious what the connector looks like search for the new Intel z97 motherboards.
m
0
l
December 2, 2014 7:21:36 AM

I am curious to find out about what ever happened to the claims over 12 and 16 g/ps SSD's coming out in 2014?

Have standard hard drives hit their limit or will there be performance increases there in 2015? How long 'till we have SATA 4?

SATA revision 3.2 (16 Gbit/s, 1969 MB/s)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA#SATA_revision_3...

Speedy 8Gbit, 16Gbit SATA Express systems coming this year
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2494432/data-center/speedy-8gbit--16gbit-sata-express-systems-coming-this-year.html

4T, 8T & 16T SSDs at 12Gb/s available 3rd Q of 2014

http://www.tomsitpro.com/articles/sandisk-4-tb-optimus-ssd-lightning,1-1925.html

http://www.sandisk.com/enterprise/sas-ssd/lightning-ultra-ssd/

Lightning Gen. II 12Gb/s SAS SSDs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSyAFQdrjw4
m
0
l
a b G Storage
December 2, 2014 8:26:43 AM

Hdd haven't risen much since ever. The only reason to push sata further is ssds. You'd have no real difference putting a current hdd or even an ssd on a sata 1 port. The max bandwidth is irrelevant to most people. 3.2 systems have been out for awhile, haswell refresh, and as you can see there are still no sata e and hardly any m2 so why already look at sata 4? You can't really lump sas with sata.
m
0
l
December 2, 2014 2:24:24 PM

November 30th 2014: PCI Express provides a much higher-capacity path to storage drives than SATA does.

"It turns out that the SSDs that ship alongside HDDs in today's computers are handcuffed in performance, limited not by the capabilities of the NVRAM chip array inside, but by the interconnect that carries the data back and forth to the system's CPU and memory."

"The vast majority of SSDs shipped to date have come installed in computers' SATA drive bays, which are designed for HDDs and connected to the motherboard via a serial cable whose signaling and data rates are governed by the Serial ATA (SATA) standard. Though it's a clean and capable interface to support an HDD's lower performance, today's pervasive SATA revision (3.0) can't keep up with the rates an SSD can deliver. Tying a screaming-fast SSD to performance-throttled SATA is like driving a Lamborghini and never leaving the slow lane."

"PCI Express: Autobahn for SSDs

Of course, where there's an obvious system bottleneck, you can bet that engineers will be working to eliminate it. And that leads us to a relatively new choice in storage options: PCI Express SSDs."

"SSDs supporting PCIe Gen 3, capable of twice the bandwidth of Gen 2 (with the same number of lanes), will be appearing soon. And PCIe's edge over current serial SATA is so compelling that SATA itself is adopting it. SATA Express, formerly referred to as SATA Revision 3.2, will support a new (and backward-compatible) connector that will not only carry SATA serial lines but two or four PCIe lanes."

http://www.cadalyst.com/hardware/workstations/interface...

Welcome to the fast-moving world of flash connectors
http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2014/11/13/flash_con...
m
0
l
December 3, 2014 4:55:27 AM

@josejones thus why we have SATA M.2 and SATA Express that use PCIe lanes now there will be no SATA 4 as everything will either go onto M.2, SATA Epress, SAS 12Gb/s or direct card to PCI express. It should be noted that the differnece from SATA 6Gb/s and M.2 is huge on paper and in benchmarks but when it really comes down to it unless you have some very storage intensive programs going you will not see any benefit once you get a SSD as the advatages of going from SATA 2 to SATA 3 were minimal and going from SATA 3 to M.2 will be even less noticeable and from M.2 to PCI express x8 will be even less noticable as the speed increases after SATA Express are not for the general consumer who is not bound by storage speeds.
When computers ship with a small M.2 drive then a massive SATA 3 or SATA Express drive that will be cool. Mainly because M.2 is much faster but in that much smaller and has alot less storage on the PCB than on a SATA 3 SSD does with some of them getting as cheap as $0.50 per GB even on the higher end of SSDs.
m
0
l
December 3, 2014 4:42:56 PM

Well put, yumri.

I was just surprised that the two articles I posted above imply that SATA will become obsolete after 12/16 g/ps SSD's on PCIe become a standard. So, you're right, there will never be a SATA 4 as it has hit its limit.

Welcome to the fast-moving world of flash connectors
http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2014/11/13/flash_con...

The Interface of Choice for SSDs
http://www.cadalyst.com/hardware/workstations/interface...

I am curious if motherboards for Intel's Skylake will have a next generation SATA Express at 20 g/ps instead of the current 10 g/ps?

Skylake: "DDR4 memory, PCI Express 4.0, Thunderbolt 3.0, and SATA Express"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylake_%28microarchitectu...

Will PCI Express 4.0 even matter? PCIe 3.0 sure didn't seem to matter much at all. You are probably right, it won't really be noticeable, but would it if you had a 12 or 16 g/ps SSD in PCIe?

I may wait to see what Skylake platform has to offer and at what price but, if it's not worth all the money I may get a Z97 or even an H97 system.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
December 3, 2014 8:26:23 PM

Why do you think sata 4 hit it's limit? There is no sata 4 out yet and we don't know what this entails. With 3.2 adding pcie, you think 4 would too so it could keep up with adding bandwidth along with pcie. As already mentioned, the increase in bandwidth is irrelevant to most people. You just never hit max sequential in just about everything. Don't expect pcie 4 til cannonlake.
m
0
l
December 4, 2014 5:56:59 AM

k1114 said:
Why do you think sata 4 hit it's limit? There is no sata 4 out yet and we don't know what this entails. With 3.2 adding pcie, you think 4 would too so it could keep up with adding bandwidth along with pcie. As already mentioned, the increase in bandwidth is irrelevant to most people. You just never hit max sequential in just about everything. Don't expect pcie 4 til cannonlake.


It is mainly that the connector just does not have enough lines for data to travel along to justify using another version number instead of just counting revisions as yes SAS has a 12 GB/s versionbut that is because of how it is set up with connectors on both the top and the bottom if i remember right while SATA only has connectors on one side on the controller side and diffenert enough signalling that SAS and SATA are not interchangeable ... unless there is a special chip in place to allow for that.
The future of SATA is SATA M.2 not the SATA tranditional connector just becuase there is only so advanced of signalling till when the possiablity of crupption out weighs any possiable speed gains made and then that is when you have to either 1 go and use a higher voltage to have it go at a higher speed but breaking compatability with lower versions and/or just changeing the entire connector to get more connectors for more data paths which M.2 does do.
m
0
l
December 4, 2014 7:18:22 AM

k1114, I never said SATA 4 hit its limit since SATA 4 does not exist and never will as SATA 3 has already hit its limit with standard hard drives and those connectors as mentioned by yumri and the AHCI interface. Today's SATA interface maxes out at 600 MB/second which limits SSD's. So, SATA 3 is already maxed out.

SSD's will go 12g/ps and 16g/ps but as far as I can tell never regular hard drives as they have already hit their limits at least with those connectors and the AHCI interface.

yumri is probably correct, the future of SATA is likely M.2 and PCIe with NVMe. Windows 10 needs to have NVMe drivers.

If you read the links you would see:

Skylake: "DDR4 memory, PCI Express 4.0, Thunderbolt 3.0, and SATA Express"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylake_%28microarchitectu...
m
0
l
a b G Storage
December 4, 2014 5:08:10 PM

Forget sata 3, it is obsolete with sata 3.2. Don't forget that this is sata e for your primary storage devices. M2 is just the smaller form factor to replace msata.
m
0
l
a b G Storage
December 4, 2014 5:12:16 PM

josejones said:
there will never be a SATA 4 as it has hit its limit.


What is this talking about?
m
0
l
December 5, 2014 7:48:33 AM

k1114, read that quote in context as many times as it takes until it all sinks in. What part of this do you not understand?:

"I never said SATA 4 hit its limit since SATA 4 does not exist and never will as SATA 3 has already hit its limit with standard hard drives and those connectors as mentioned by yumri and the AHCI interface. Today's SATA interface maxes out at 600 MB/second which limits SSD's. So, SATA 3 is already maxed out.

SSD's will go 12g/ps and 16g/ps but as far as I can tell never regular hard drives as they have already hit their limits at least with those connectors and the AHCI interface.

yumri is probably correct, the future of SATA is likely M.2 and PCIe with NVMe...."

SATA 3.2 did little to increase performance for standard disc Hard Drives (HD). SATA 3.2 was more for M.2 and SSD's since, as already discussed, HD's are limited by the AHCI interface and the connecters that limit them to 600 MB/s making SATA disc HD's soon to be obsolete AFTER M.2 and PCIe along with a new NVMe interface and connectors becomes the new standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA#SATA_revision_3...

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2013/08/13/sata-3...

When M.2 and PCIe, along with the new NVMe interface and connectors becomes the new standard we will see PCIe SSD's at 20 to 40 g/ps:

Welcome to the fast-moving world of flash connectors
http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2014/11/13/flash_con...

The Interface of Choice for SSDs
http://www.cadalyst.com/hardware/workstations/interface...




"With a 4 x PCI Express 3.0/2.0 bandwidth, M.2 supports up to 32Gbps data-transfer speeds..."

ASUS X99-E WS LGA 2011-v3 Intel X99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
1
l
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest