Print 41 comment(s) - last by Spivonious.. on Mar 22 at 2:31 PM

The new SATA Slimline connector interface
New small-form factor and mobile enhancements specified in revision 2.6

The Serial ATA International Organization, also known as SATA-IO, today announced its latest Serial ATA specification – SATA revision 2.6 (PDF). The latest SATA revision 2.6 adds new physical and performance features to the previous SATA revision 2.5, also referred to as SATA 3.0Gbps, specification.

New physical features added to the SATA revision 2.6 include internal cable specifications for small-form-factor systems and mobile PC applications. SATA revision 2.6 specifies a new internal slim-line cable and connector. The new Slimline cable and connector target tightly packed small-form-factor systems. SATA-IO also defines the internal micro SATA connector with ultra mobile PCs in mind. The new internal micro SATA connector specification is for 1.8” hard drives only right now.

In addition to the small-form-factor and ultra mobile PC benefits of SATA revision 2.6, SATA-IO defines a new mini SATA multilane cable and connector. The new mini SATA multilane cable and connector specification is for internal and external SATA usage. Do not expect to see mini SATA multilane connectors on consumer desktop systems, however. SATA-IO defines the specification for use internally in high-bandwidth backplanes and externally for high-bandwidth external storage enclosures.

Physical enhancements aside, SATA revision 2.6 introduces new performance improvements to the SATA specification. Native Command Queuing, or NCQ, receives upgrades beneficial to desktop and notebook systems. NCQ priority enhancement is the latest feature and prioritizes data during complex workloads. On the mobile improvements sides of things, a new NCQ unload enhancement feature makes it way into the SATA specification. This new feature increases mobile SATA hard drive robustness, especially in drop-prone environments.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

This doesn't make sense
By Dactyl on 3/7/2007 8:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
You think SATA 2.6 is cutting edge? I've had a SATA 3.0 drive for the past two years. Is mine beta or something?

You can buy hard drives that are SATA 1.5, SATA-II and SATA 3.0. But I've never seen a SATA 2.5 or SATA 2.6. I don't think they even really exist.

DailyTech fell for a hoax, hook line and sinker.

(before you downrank me, I'm not serious)

RE: This doesn't make sense
By exanimas on 3/7/2007 8:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
Due to some of the comments I've seen on this website, it wouldn't have surprised me if you were 100% serious.

RE: This doesn't make sense
By Omega215D on 3/7/2007 8:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
It's just that some sites such as newegg use the throughput number after the SATA. So SATA-II would be labeled as SATA 3.0 (as in Gbps). but yeah it's kind of weird.

RE: This doesn't make sense
By kensiko on 3/7/2007 8:48:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yes that is true. But I really think, with one channel, that 3 Gbps is completely unuseful.

By the way, I'm new here. How can you have an impact on a comment's rating ?

RE: This doesn't make sense
By AndreasM on 3/8/2007 11:25:07 AM , Rating: 2
Comments are modded up or down through the worth reading/not worth reading links in a post. Replying to a comment removes all your mods from the thread. Welcome. :)

RE: This doesn't make sense
By johnsonx on 3/9/2007 12:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
you can't rate comments until you've posted comments yourself a number of times. I don't know how many you need though; AFAIK no one has ever disclosed the precise formula.

RE: This doesn't make sense
By BMFPitt on 3/8/2007 10:10:37 AM , Rating: 4
Who needs that DDR3 stuff? I have DDR version 800!


RE: This doesn't make sense
By S3anister on 3/8/2007 12:16:54 AM , Rating: 2
dude... seriously i know...

RE: This doesn't make sense
By Thmstec on 3/7/2007 8:32:55 PM , Rating: 2
there is no 3.0, you must be thinking of sata-300(aka SATA-II), which is actually wrong, the Sata group has no sata II, there is sata-IO, but wtf is the standard on damned confusing. its pretty much become "what features does the drive have?" (150mb or 300mb, NCQ, blah blah blah)

RE: This doesn't make sense
By Dactyl on 3/7/07, Rating: -1
RE: This doesn't make sense
By johnsonx on 3/9/2007 12:19:21 PM , Rating: 2
Why mod the guy down for that? It's actually vaguely funny, since that's pretty much what Native Command Queueing does.

RE: This doesn't make sense
By Spivonious on 3/7/2007 10:40:18 PM , Rating: 3
No, it's 3.0Gbps for SATA-II and 1.5Gbps for SATA. 150/300Mbps would be extremely slow by today's standards (about 18.75-37.5MBps, whereas the best IDE is UDMA133).

RE: This doesn't make sense
By Snipester on 3/7/2007 11:34:31 PM , Rating: 2
Please...... are you serious?

There is NO SATA II... it does not exist. It exists maybe in marketing fluff as 300GBps as i have seen it labelled as such on actual products.

its called 1.0 then 2.5 etc.....

Same as PCIe spec. 1.1 then 2.0 .......

RE: This doesn't make sense
By Visual on 3/8/2007 1:19:45 PM , Rating: 2
um... when he said 300mb/s he meant megabytes, not megabits.
and that is the same as 3Gbps, if you count parity bits.

RE: This doesn't make sense
By Spivonious on 3/22/2007 2:31:44 PM , Rating: 2
well, being a tech site, it's generally assumed that people know the jargon.

RE: This doesn't make sense
By pepperxn on 3/7/2007 8:42:03 PM , Rating: 2
Here's the only thing that I could think of:

serialATA is 150MBps or 1.5Gbps
serialATA 2(2.0) is really serialATA-IO. This is spec 2.0. IO doesn't have to be 3.0Gbps or 300MBps. This is what most people don't understand. So before you buy a motherboard, and/or hard drive check the specs.
So spec 2.5 and 2.6 adds some features like the actual speed increase, NCQ, etc. Not all 2.0 drives include the speed boost to 300MBps/3.0Gbps.
There are revisions to the specs like adding new features.
Like within a year or so there will be serialATA at 600MBps, but they'll probably call it serialATA 6 (6.0). This would be spec 3.0.
By owning a 3.0 drive now, you probably really mean 3.0Gbps, which is the 300MBps serialATA-IO (serialATA-2.0)

RE: This doesn't make sense
By MPE on 3/7/2007 11:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
serialATA is 150MBps or 1.5Gbps [snip] you probably really mean 3.0Gbps, which is the 300MBps

1.5 Gb/s is not 150 MB/s. It is actually 187.5 MB/s. Nor 3.0 Gb/s equals 300 MB/s. It is actually 375 MB/s.

RE: This doesn't make sense
By InsaneScientist on 3/8/2007 12:48:48 AM , Rating: 2
Actually in this case it is.

The SATA specification transfers 10 bits per byte for some reason, though only 8 are needed.
Maybe a start and stop bit? I don't have a clue.
All I know is with SATA 1.5Gbps does equal 150MB/s and 3Gbps really does equal 300MB/s

Why can't they keep things consistent? >_<

RE: This doesn't make sense
By AndreasM on 3/8/2007 11:21:52 AM , Rating: 1
It's to reduce interference. However, those 10 bits still only contain 8 bits of real data, so technically you're both right. :)

Wikipedia has more if you're interested:

RE: This doesn't make sense
By Oregonian2 on 3/8/2007 7:14:58 PM , Rating: 2
1000BASE-X gigabit ethernet (over fiber) uses 8B/10B as well, so the gigabit serial stream really runs at 1.25 Gb. It gives DC balance as well as provides a minimum number of data edges from which to do clock recovery (else a large block of data that's all ones or all zeros would be a problem).

RE: This doesn't make sense
By Golgatha777 on 3/8/2007 11:26:25 AM , Rating: 2

Ah, learn something new every day. SATA uses 8B/10B encoding, which means that SATA150 is really 150MB/sec actual data throughput due to the 8bit to 10bit encoding.

RE: This doesn't make sense
By mino on 3/8/2007 12:04:50 PM , Rating: 3
AFAIK those 2 bits are for ECC stuff.
1.5Gbps is physical speed while 150MBps is real data bandwith. Kinda.

RE: This doesn't make sense
By Golgatha777 on 3/8/2007 11:17:54 AM , Rating: 2
Thank goodness someone knows the math.

8bits = 1byte

8Gb = 1GB

3.0Gb/sec = 0.375GB/sec or 375MB/sec (10^3 conversion factor)

This is why many people say there is no performance difference between SATA150 and SATA300 because most hard drives have trouble getting near the 100MB/sec sustained transfer rate threshold, much less 187MB/sec or 375MB/sec.

RE: This doesn't make sense
By johnsonx on 3/9/2007 12:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
Thank goodness someone knows the math.

You're right, someone does... just not you.

RE: This doesn't make sense
By drebo on 3/8/2007 12:55:21 AM , Rating: 3
Here's the only thing I could think of:

You're all idiots.

SATA-IO is the organization, the tech group, that publishes and devises the SATA standards.

There are currently two SATA standards:

The original SATA standard, known as SATA 1 or now SATA 150 or SATA 1.5, referring to the speed(1.5 Gbps).

There was a modified SATA standard that, for a time, was known as SATA II. The speed of this standard was 3.0 Gbps. I believe this was the SATA 2.0 specification, and certain things like NCQ were added when it was upgraded to the SATA 2.5 spec, which is what current drives are manufactured. SATA II drives are no longer called SATA II drives because of a law suit which found the SATA II label was a trademark infringement. Now, SATA II is known as SATA 3.0. It does not mean that it is the SATA 3.0 specification. It means that it is SATA with a 3.0 Gbps bus speed.

For reference, the interface is not that much faster. UDMA 133 had a speed of 1.33 Gbps. No hardware, not even 10K RPM drives, can read that fast, so all that extra bandwidth is lost, though. That's why SCSI drives have never matured past 320. Simply no need to expand the bus that wide.

The next SATA standard will be a 6.0 Gbps standard.

Really, read the Wikipedia article or something. Sheesh.

RE: This doesn't make sense
By johnsonx on 3/9/2007 12:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
I'd mod you up, but I talk too much so I never get to vote. Well said.

RE: This doesn't make sense
By fk49 on 3/7/2007 9:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
Wait, does no one understand sarcasm?

He was joking.

RE: This doesn't make sense
By Omega215D on 3/7/2007 9:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
Some of the posts here already acknowledge that but there are those that actually do believe that the SATA 3.0 moniker means 3rd Gen. SATA instead of 3.0 Gbps. I did say it was weird.

RE: This doesn't make sense
By soydios on 3/7/2007 10:34:08 PM , Rating: 2

Apparently, DailyTech does not understand humor and sarcasm.

RE: This doesn't make sense
By ted61 on 3/8/2007 11:54:31 AM , Rating: 2
This is a great thread. Too bad the original poster got modded down.

Thanks for explanation pepperx. I never had the ambition to check on the difference between IDE and SATA. I have a few computers running IDE drives, including a new dual core setup. The dual core is going to get a SATA drive this weekend.

RE: This doesn't make sense
By carl0ski on 3/9/2007 8:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
Dope idiot you didnt even read the blurb

""the previous SATA revision 2.5, also referred to as SATA 3.0Gbps, specification. ""

Businesses selling SATA 2.5 drives incorrectly refer to it as SATA 3.0gbs or 3.0

Too Small
By qdemn7 on 3/7/2007 9:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why you even published that image, you can't read the small print even if you save it and use Windows Fax Viewer to enlarge it.

RE: Too Small
By TomZ on 3/7/2007 9:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
I think I can make out the captions (left to right):
- segment key (probably should say power segment key)
- power segment pin p1
- signal segment key
- signal segment pin s1
- PCB mounting

RE: Too Small
By Scrogneugneu on 3/7/2007 11:20:14 PM , Rating: 2
Might I suggest clicking on the image?

RE: Too Small
By S3anister on 3/8/2007 12:17:57 AM , Rating: 1
rTard? yes.

Its all good....
By suryad on 3/8/2007 9:31:32 AM , Rating: 2
...but where are real world performance increases when it comes to hard drives? It is shocking to see that despite all the advances made, hard drive technology is still a relic! It is the 21st century and we still dont have a solution to the problem. Just imagine how fast even older computers would be if the hard drive was twice as fast as the fastest drives we have at the moment. What is the point of increasing the bandwidth if the device cant even achieve a third of the output!

RE: Its all good....
By jabber on 3/8/2007 11:40:43 AM , Rating: 2
You do have to wonder at the validity of these groups that seems to just spend all their time coming up with new standards that are purely theoretical and have no bearing on real world performance. We havent really moved much beyond (if at all) ATA-66 but we've had nearly half a dozen new standards since.

I guess its the vendors need for product churn. Slap a sticker saying SATA3 and they (I mean we) will buy it.

RE: Its all good....
By mino on 3/8/2007 12:07:47 PM , Rating: 2
I gues it is because there are other benefits from SATA thatn bandwith?
IMO far more important stuff is thin_cabling/point-point_topology/hot-plug/NCQ/stag gered_spin-up/external_connectors etc...

The best performance increase?
By jabber on 3/8/2007 4:57:08 AM , Rating: 3
The best way to improve SATA performance is to make the sockets so the cables dont fall out. A lot of the cables cant even withstand a journey in the back of the car without dropping out.

Adopt some of the Western Digital SATA connection methods.

Who Cares
By mercilessming on 3/9/2007 9:51:51 AM , Rating: 2
I want real harddrive speed, seems Sata XX all the way back to ATA 100 has never gotten really faster. On paper and in Theory yes, but in , by now shouldn't we have harddrive I/O that matches most servers of 5 years ago? I remember going to 7200 rpm speed and thinking this is fast, wasn't this during the transition of ata66 to ata 100? But after that I barely see the speed upgrades. We have CPU, MEMORY and Video cards that are jet engines and hard drives that are still push carts.

you must be on drugs...
By Doh! on 3/7/07, Rating: -1
“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki