Intel Developing New SSD Specification for Ultrabooks

News
By Kevin Parrish
published

Intel is pushing for a new mSATA SSD standard for Ultrabooks called NGFF.

Unnamed sources claim that Intel is currently working with PC vendors and NAND flash firms to unify specifications for mSATA SSDs for Ultrabooks. The new SSD specification is expected to be finalized sometime in September and then fully adopted into Ultrabooks by 2013. So far it's unclear whether this new spec will also be adopted by traditional notebooks.

According to the sources, Intel is looking to unify mSATA SSD specifications into one single standard called Next Generation Form Factor (NGFF). Most PC brand vendors and NAND flash makers such as Micron, SanDisk and Samsung Electronics are reportedly participating in the discussion.

However Intel is being aggressive about pushing NGFF because it claims the current mSATA SSD specs limit the number of NAND flash that can be used (4 to 5 chips max). Intel's argument is that if Ultrabook manufacturers want to offer more than 512 GB of storage capacity, the new NGFF standard will eradicate the current limitation by allowing SSDs to feature NAND chips on both sides of the PCB. These two-sided NGFF-based SSDs will still keep their same thickness and width, but they'll also sport a new length.

PC vendors are reportedly discussing five lengths that will best suit Ultrabooks including 20-mm, 42-mm, 60-mm, 80-mm and 120-mm. The 42-mm, 60-mm and 80-mm versions are expected to have a higher chance of become the final standard, sources said.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Kevin Parrish
18 Comments Comment from the forums
  • jacobdrj
    I wish it wasn't Intel pushing the standard improvement, but at least someone is pushing for a standard improvement who has clout.
    Reply
  • back_by_demand
    I don't care who pushes the standard as long as everyone actually adopts it and no-one owns it, the 3.5" and 2.5" drives have been so successful for that reason.
    Reply
  • dragonsqrrl
    jacobdrjI wish it wasn't Intel pushing the standard improvementumm, why?
    Reply
  • jacobdrj
    dragonsqrrlumm, why?Because I fear it won't be adopted by everyone. Namely AMD. Perhaps Apple as well.
    Reply
  • dalethepcman
    jacobdrjBecause I fear it won't be adopted by everyone. Namely AMD. Perhaps Apple as well.Because everyone knows AMD doesn't use x86, sse, or mmx.

    Apple wouldn't use anything from Intel, not their processors, or the thunderbolt ports, or motherboards, or anything at all...... They only use Apple products, that's why the macbook air has an A5 APU, and the mac pro runs a risc PowerPC chip...
    Reply
  • JohnnyLucky
    Makes sense to me. Helps if everyone is using the same standard. I remember proprietary systems being a royal pain in the neck.
    Reply
  • jacobdrj
    dalethepcmanBecause everyone knows AMD doesn't use x86, sse, or mmx.Apple wouldn't use anything from Intel, not their processors, or the thunderbolt ports, or motherboards, or anything at all...... They only use Apple products, that's why the macbook air has an A5 APU, and the mac pro runs a risc PowerPC chip...Ultrabooks are in direct competition with Apple's Air line. Even if they are using the same components, it puts stress on the relationship. By actually favoring Apple with Thunderbolt, it may have hindered the adoption of Thunderbolt to other manufacturers, as it may have increased licensing costs (much like Firewire was a slow adoption after Intel pushed USB without Apple).

    I said in my OP that I appreciate someone with clout doing this. But Intel, unless they do this wisely, might make as simple an issue as this standard, become divisive.
    Reply
  • Firewire was slow to adoption because when it came out it was inferior to USB. Intel had nothing to do with that =/
    Reply
  • markdj
    jacobdrjUltrabooks are in direct competition with Apple's Air line. Even if they are using the same components, it puts stress on the relationship. By actually favoring Apple with Thunderbolt, it may have hindered the adoption of Thunderbolt to other manufacturers, as it may have increased licensing costs (much like Firewire was a slow adoption after Intel pushed USB without Apple). I said in my OP that I appreciate someone with clout doing this. But Intel, unless they do this wisely, might make as simple an issue as this standard, become divisive.

    Well apple will have to use this if they want to stay competitive with higher capacity ssds and still small form factor.
    Reply
  • alidan
    c123s456Firewire was slow to adoption because when it came out it was inferior to USB. Intel had nothing to do with that =/
    really, i thought firewire was suppose to be faster than usb by allot, even usb 2 while theoretically was faster never matched firewire, and only usb3 really pushed it... the only reason firewire wasn't standard was because of apple holding onto its name, and forcing everyone else to use the letter number name i cant remember, which for normal users, means nothing, so it couldn't be used as a marketing point.
    Reply