Intel G3 SSD Delayed

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Cynicalone, Sep 28, 2010.

  1. Cynicalone macrumors 68040

    Cynicalone

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Location:
    Okie land
    #1
    Article Link
    http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ssd-solid-state-drive-25nm,11363.html
     
  2. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #2
    Oh well.

    Looks like my decision to get the Sandforce SSD isn't all that bad.
     
  3. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #3
    Thanks for the heads up! Hopefully Intel learned from G2 that they shouldn't launch something that they cannot deliver. It doesn't matter is it launched in November 2010 or February 2011 if it doesn't hit the shelves before February 2011.
     
  4. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
  5. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #5
    Yeah, I think they are probably being much more cautious this time around in terms of solidifying firmware and controller operation before launch. G3 drives will need much more than 25nm NAND to be competitive. They are undoubtedly redesigning their controller and looking at compression techniques like Sandforce to bring down the write amplification to maximize performance... which translates into significant validation testing for this gen.
     
  6. danwat1234 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    #6
  7. Einz macrumors regular

    Einz

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Location:
    Miami
    #7
    Unless it's PCIe, most of the current Macs will not able to take advantage of the speed.

    What's the current limit on the SATA2?
     
  8. dp84 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    #8
    in theory 300Mb/s
    in real life 270-280Mb/s
     
  9. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #9
    Actually, it's 375MB/s. It's 3 Gigabits per second and 8 bits are equal to 1 byte. Thus you divide 3Gb/s (3000Mb/s) by 8 and you get 0.375GB/s = 375MB/s.

    However, the real world max is ~285MB/s
     
  10. rtrt, Nov 1, 2010
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2011
  11. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #11
    He was right that the unit used, Mb/s (after he converted it from Gb/s), needs to be divided by 8 to get MB/s. So the theoretical maximum is 375MB/s.

    But SATA does use an 8b/10b encoding scheme, and a user will never see the theoretical maximum in practice (due to latency).
     
  12. macz1 macrumors 6502

    macz1

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    #12

    You said everything, but you did not explain it 100% correctly. Latency is not an issue in this case. SATA II is capable of transferring 300'000'000 bits per second, but every payload byte is coded as a 10bit-sequence (for redundancy, clock recovery and DC-balance reasons)
    The theoretical maximum of the physical link is therefore 300MB/s payload, which is somewhat reduced due to protocol overheads. Which leads to the mentioned ~280MB/s real-world performance.
     
  13. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #13
    I was trying to keep it as simple as possible. :eek:

    The 375MB/s figure is a max throughput, but it's the burst rate, not sustained. I don't see a need to get into clock recovery (PLL circuits), DC coupling,...

    The figure you've posted is the maximum uncoded transfer rate, which is 2.4 Gbit/s = 300 MB/s, which is essentially the maximum sustained throughput. From this figure to real world results, the throughput loss is much lower (~20 - 30MB/s) due to the protocol (primarily), but it still meets the definition of latency (latency = time delays experienced in a system, regardless of the source). Part of this loss may also be from other issues as well, such as jitter.
     
  14. Philflow macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    #14
    Good point. Intel hasn't said anything about a delay.
     
  15. deviance macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    #15
    maybe there's still hope for us yet!

    in the past has intel made announcements about delays?
     
  16. vexious macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    #16
    ugh, i hope it comes soon... i can't wait much longer!
     
  17. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #17
    Unless you are buying a new Mac with an updated SATA controller, there is no point in waiting.
     
  18. Transporteur macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    The G3 will still be SATA II, but with heavily increased random performance, better sequential writes and a better price/GB rate.
    So there's definitely a point in waiting.
     
  19. philipma1957 macrumors 603

    philipma1957

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Howell, New Jersey
    #19
    I sold of all my ssd's to wait for this one. It will have a 600gb size for the max one. That size will hold all my go to info ie a 400gb itunes and around 100gb of programs etc. having my entire itunes on an ssd (not 2 in raid0) has been a goal for me.
     
  20. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #20
    According to AnandTech, there may be models with SATA 6Gb/s as well

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/3965/intels-3rd-generation-x25m-ssd-specs-revealed
     
  21. AmethystZhou macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2010
    #21
    I'd better buy a G.Skill Pheonix Pro instead.
     

Share This Page