backtop


Print 34 comment(s) - last by huanglungfa.. on Dec 4 at 1:50 AM

Don't want to be obsolete before launch

Most laptops and netbooks today come with a SDHC flash memory card reader. One of the major benefits of standardization is the ubiquity it allows. Consumers can take a SD or SDHC card from a digital camera or camcorder and transfer the data quickly to a laptop, enabling them to edit and/or email their media files easily.

The new SDXC standard announced earlier this year will begin to replace SDHC in 2010. The new memory cards will be able to support speeds as high as 300MB/s and capacities as large as 2TB. Best of all, the new standard is backwards compatible, meaning that SDXC readers will be able to read SDHC, SD, and MMC memory cards.

In order to prepare for this, laptop manufacturers are looking to replace SDHC readers in their laptops with SDXC readers. DailyTech has received information that Lenovo, HP, and Dell are actively working on laptops with SDXC support, but no information is available yet from Apple or how soon SDXC will make its way into MacBooks.

Intel will soon introduce new Westmere-based 32nm Arrandale mobile CPUs, which will feature integrated graphics on the same package. Laptops using the new chips are expected to be cheaper and use less power, greatly extended battery life. Laptop manufacturers are expecting brisk sales from the new designs, which must last until the Sandy Bridge generation of mobile CPUs is ready in 2011.

The issue is complicated by the fact that many SDHC readers are connected internally through a USB 2.0 bus, which does not have enough bandwidth to support SDXC. Connections for SDXC must be made instead through the PCIe bus.

The first products using SDXC are expected to be shown at the 2010 Consumer Electronics Show in January.



Comments     Threshold


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

Wow!
By Spivonious on 11/30/2009 12:24:31 PM , Rating: 3
2TB capacities and 300MB/s transfer speeds? Who needs a hard drive, just plug in an SDXC card.




RE: Wow!
By AnnihilatorX on 11/30/2009 12:54:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
support speeds as high as 300MB/s


I suggest re-reading the sentence.
FYI "SATA-II supports 6Gb/s" :P


RE: Wow!
By KingstonU on 11/30/2009 1:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
I thought it was

SATA I = 1.5GB/s
SATA II = 3GB/s
SATA III = 6GB/s

Where actual real world transfer speeds of SATA II hard drives tops out at ~260MB/s.


RE: Wow!
By steven975 on 11/30/2009 1:26:47 PM , Rating: 4
Actually it is 1.5, 3.0, and 6.0 Gbps. Megabits...

Since they use 8b/10b encoding, it is 150, 300, and 600MBps. Megabytes...

SATA300 starts capping out at ~250MB/s in actual throughput versus the 300MB/s theoretical. Pretty fast IMO.


RE: Wow!
By amanojaku on 11/30/2009 1:44:37 PM , Rating: 3
Close, but:

SATA 1.5Gbit/sec = 187.5MB/sec ~ 178.81MiB/sec
SATA 3.0Gbit/sec = 375MB/sec ~ 357.63MiB/sec
SATA 6.0Gbit/sec = 750MB/sec ~715.26MiB/sec

Where:
Gbit = 1,000,000,000 bits = 125,000,000 bytes
MB = 1,000,000 bytes = 8,000,000 bits
MiB = 1,048,576 bytes = 8,388,608 bits

As you said, these are the raw line rates and not the data rates, which are as much as 80% of raw.


RE: Wow!
By ChronoReverse on 11/30/2009 4:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
Except you completely missed this part:
quote:
Since they use 8b/10b encoding, it is 150, 300, and 600MBps. Megabytes...


So 150MB/s, 300MB/s and 600MB/s


RE: Wow!
By Shining Arcanine on 12/3/2009 5:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
Close, but:

1MB = 1,048,576 bytes = 8,388,608 bits

If you want to specify it in powers of ten, then say:

1MiB = 1,000,000 bytes = 8,000,000 bits

MB has been defined for the past several decades as being a power of 2. Using a power of 10 is just an approximation of it, and no standards organization can come along and change that.


RE: Wow!
By AnnihilatorX on 11/30/2009 2:12:53 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be careful with capital B and b. b is bit while B is bytes.
As people kindly pointed out, I was wrong about SATAII, I meant III


RE: Wow!
By inperfectdarkness on 11/30/2009 4:50:51 PM , Rating: 1
so can we expect...

32GB micro?
128GB mini?
250GB SDXC?

i don't expect anyone to be able to fit 2TB into an sd card in the near future. i'd like to see more capacity though...


RE: Wow!
By inperfectdarkness on 11/30/2009 4:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
i did some more research. i guess 32gb micro is already here. *shocked*

now if the price would come down. to say, $15....


RE: Wow!
By Jeffk464 on 11/30/2009 8:30:15 PM , Rating: 1
I was thinking the same thing. I wonder if they will make it bootable. You could use it as your OS boot drive and get super fast boot times.


RE: Wow!
By foolsgambit11 on 11/30/2009 10:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
Just because theoretical transfer rates are high doesn't mean data read/write times (random and sequential) will be able to keep up. It would be wonderful to get some of the benefits of SSDs without the exhorbitant costs, but I'm not sure SDXC is going to be a contender for that.

Also, as I understood it from a previous article, the first SDXC cards coming out won't support the full data transfer rate, nor will they be anywhere need 2TB (not that we need that much space at the moment).


RE: Wow!
By matt0401 on 12/1/2009 1:53:12 AM , Rating: 2
This is precisely what I do with my netbook. 16GB SSD and a 16GB SDHC card inserted. 32GB of solid state storage in total. It's interesting to think that such a tiny little thing doubles my storage capacity. :P


RE: Wow!
By ImSpartacus on 12/1/2009 7:46:08 AM , Rating: 2
Well those SSDs that are put in budget netbooks are actually pretty small themselves.

But it is still funny that it could be doubled like that.


Why Macs?
By curryj02 on 11/30/2009 12:17:40 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
DailyTech has received information that Lenovo, HP, and Dell are actively working on laptops with SDXC support, but no information is available yet from Apple or how soon SDXC will make its way into MacBooks.

Why does Apple get specific mention but other major PC manufacturers (not actively working on SDXC) such as Toshiba, Acer, Asus and Gateway (just to name some of the big ones) don't even get a mention? Are we supposed to care more when we can get SDXC on mac than from other brands? Why not just write: 'other manufacturers (including Apple) are yet to release information concerning their integration of SDXC'?




RE: Why Macs?
By SpaceJumper on 11/30/2009 7:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
Apple will have its own memory card similar to SDXC, but it will not be compatible in Windows machines. Apple can get more money that way from the Apple enthusiasts.


RE: Why Macs?
By Jeffk464 on 11/30/2009 8:35:41 PM , Rating: 2
Apple is either brilliant or evil, or possibly brilliantly evil in sucking people's bank accounts dry. :) They have an OS that has less software written for it, they are control freeks, and yet they can charge about 50% more. That is some impressive marketing.


RE: Why Macs?
By sprockkets on 12/1/2009 12:38:55 AM , Rating: 2
There are upsides to being control freaks, at least in their Macs, where OSX works perfectly with the hardware because both come from the same company.

Whether or not that is worth an extra $600 to people, is another story of course.


RE: Why Macs?
By HaZaRd2K6 on 11/30/2009 11:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
Or just "other manufacturers". I hate it when people think Apple is special. No manufacturer is special. They all make machines that do the same things, they just do them in different manners.


RE: Why Macs?
By fatedtodie on 12/1/2009 7:21:24 AM , Rating: 2
Let's see, who are the top 2 PC companies for sales (or atleast always in the top 3) HP and Dell right?
Now who is the only producer of the next type of computer? Apple?
Now who produces a "linux" computer? (technically nobody).

So why single out Apple, Hp, and Dell? Because for once the writer knows a bit about computers in today's market.

When you learn a bit yourself you can comment again.


What is the ETA for 32nm?
By Lord 666 on 11/30/2009 11:50:29 AM , Rating: 2
Holding out several server and desktop purchases until it is released. Really interested in the AES-NI instruction set.




RE: What is the ETA for 32nm?
By amanojaku on 11/30/2009 12:07:08 PM , Rating: 3
AMD - Desktop - ??? (possibly 2011)
AMD - Server - 2011 (possibly Q4 2010)
AMD - Mobile - ??? (possibly 2010)

Intel - Desktop - Q1 2010
Intel - Server - Q1 2010
Intel - Mobile - Q1 2010


RE: What is the ETA for 32nm?
By amanojaku on 11/30/2009 12:07:48 PM , Rating: 2
Eh, mobile is supposed to be 2011.


RE: What is the ETA for 32nm?
By Visual on 12/1/2009 4:55:32 AM , Rating: 2
Why 2011? The article said that they will be shown at CES in January 2010, and in 2011 we will already have their sandy bridge replacements? Are you saying they will be shown but not actually enter the market before they get replaced?


RE: What is the ETA for 32nm?
By Visual on 12/1/2009 4:57:02 AM , Rating: 2
Ah you mean for AMD, sorry I am slow today.


Apple Already Support SDXC
By iwod on 11/30/09, Rating: 0
RE: Apple Already Support SDXC
By damianrobertjones on 12/1/2009 8:17:45 AM , Rating: 3
... Is your keyboard failing? Your 's' character reads '$'.

Happy to help.


RE: Apple Already Support SDXC
By yuhong on 12/1/2009 4:40:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, I personally do not use M$ myself, but yes I know, it is very common.


RE: Apple Already Support SDXC
By Silver2k7 on 12/2/2009 5:03:37 AM , Rating: 2
dyslexia perhaps ;)


Firmware upgrade
By TMV192 on 11/30/2009 1:07:24 PM , Rating: 1
The SDHC spec was fully capable of handling the 2TB limit of SDXC, so just like with SD to SDHC, I'm sure there will be a many of devices upgradable with a simple firmware upgrade




RE: Firmware upgrade
By LRonaldHubbs on 11/30/2009 11:17:46 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have a source to back this up? I'd love for it to be true, but reports I have read, such as the one below, say otherwise.

http://www.anythingbutipod.com/archives/2009/01/ne...

quote:
The bad news is that unlike the transition from SD to SDHC, which sometimes only required a firmware update, requires supporting chipsets. So don’t expect to simply firmware upgrade your current player for this new format.


RE: Firmware upgrade
By fatedtodie on 12/1/2009 7:35:16 AM , Rating: 2
While SDHC was capable of handing up to 2TB the benefit of SDXC is not just SIZE but speed.
SDHC had a cap on it speed at 10MB/s I think if I remember right, while SDXC has a theoretical cap of 300MB/s.

So while firmware can support the different filesystem that SDXC uses, it will not magically create extra lanes for data to go through.


Can't wait...
By The0ne on 11/30/2009 12:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
Been looking forward to this tech all this year now and looks like there's action going on quite early. Can't wait for the TB flashes to come about :D Also looking forward to SSD for next year as well. Should be a good year for tech advancements in both.




By huanglungfa on 12/4/2009 1:50:29 AM , Rating: 2
For the chicken-and-egg dilemma about SDXC card and card reader, JMicron's JMB389, SDXC card reader IC, might be a solution. Please visit YouTube for the demo film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHUcnsXA6Ao&feature...




"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki