backtop


Print 72 comment(s) - last by The0ne.. on Jul 6 at 2:11 PM


Apple is rumored to be packing 19 nm, 400 MBps, ONFI 3.0 compliant flash memory onto the motherboard of the new MacBook Air.  (Source: 9 to 5 Mac)
Integrating chips into the motherboard could allow the MacBook Air to offer high performance affordably

With a refresh of the MacBook Air seemingly impending the rumor mill surrounding Apple Inc. (AAPL) is once again heating up.  

According to Macotakara.jp, a Japanese Apple fan site, the latest version of the ultraportable will use cutting edge flash memory technology.  The site cites sources at unnamed Asian chipmakers as claiming that the latest Airs will contain 19nm flash memory chips soldered directly onto the motherboard for blazing speeds of up to 400 megabits per second.

Current generation MacBook Airs only have RAM chips soldered on.  The SSD for the laptops are connected using mSATA connectors.

Apple reportedly calls the new technology Toggle DDR2.0.  Aside from the rather curious title (ostensibly it involves NAND flash, not DDR memory), the technology is expected to be Apple's proprietary implementation of the Open NAND Flash Interface (ONFI) Working Group's ONFI 3.0 standard.

ONFI 3.0 promises faster speeds and reduces the number of pins on flash memory chips.  These factors add up to nearly "instant" boot times and fast file copies.

If the rumor about the new flash is true, it likely comes from Micron Technology, Inc. (MU), Intel Corp. (INTC), or Spansion Inc. (CODE) -- all members of the ONFI 3.0 coalition.  Apple's current NAND supplier, South Korea's Samsung Electronics (SEO:005930), and the world's second biggest producer, Toshiba Corp. (TYO:6502) are not currently members.

A split with Samsung would make sense, given Apple's ongoing legal war with the gadget and component maker.

At times Apple has been on the bleeding edge of introducing new standards.  It was the first major manufacturer to push Intel's proprietary LightPeak interface, which it renamed Thunderbolt.  The refresh of the MacBook Air is expected to come packing Thunderbolt as well, which requires fancy chip-laden $50 USD cables to work.

OS X Lion and the refreshed MacBook Air are expected to launch on July 14.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: new standards?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/5/2011 6:39:15 PM , Rating: 2
Now you're being an idiot. I don't know why I even bother with you.


RE: new standards?
By Pirks on 7/5/11, Rating: 0
RE: new standards?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/5/2011 6:53:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah cause with no edit feature, nobody could possibly make a typo...

Stop being a kid.


RE: new standards?
By Pirks on 7/5/2011 7:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if you wanna talk serious - start talking serious. Tell me what didn't you like about SCSI daisy chaining, for instance.


RE: new standards?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/5/2011 7:05:44 PM , Rating: 2
The two aren't comparable, and if you thought for even a second about it, you would have seen that.


RE: new standards?
By Pirks on 7/5/2011 7:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you said daisy chaining wouldn't work for Thunderbolt while it was working just fine for SCSI. So you don't want to explain why?


RE: new standards?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/5/11, Rating: 0
RE: new standards?
By quiksilvr on 7/5/2011 8:06:03 PM , Rating: 4
Judging from the long list of threads here I think you have plenty of time to "waste". And it isn't waste if you are informing people the downfalls of SCSI.

Pirks, despite your uh...controversial views, I would be happy to explain the downfalls of this system.

As explained earlier, each device has to be configured to run Thunderbolt. This means that a bit more complex and expensive hardware has to be in place. This is much like SCSI. Yes it was parallel and allowed simultaneous data, but the format was also confusing and had multiple types of I/O. Plus, at the time it had a very poor BiOS support.

Obviously Thunderbolt will not have the same downfalls as SCSI, but Thunderbolt is doomed to fail.

Frankly, in my opinion at least, I wasn't quite sure why Thunderbolt and USB 3.0 weren't one in the same thing. I don't see the reason why the Light Peak technology could not have integrated with the USB port design. That way, you can use active and passive cables on the same port, thus opening the market for multiple formats.

Although I am always for the more superior technology, I don't see Thunderbolt winning against USB 3.0. You can already use the millions (if not billions) of devices that connect via USB on it without having to get a new port and still get more than fast enough speeds for consumer and business markets. Furthermore, the cables are incredibly expensive.

I actually thing $50 is relatively cheap for the performance and reliability it gives and that price will take years to drop. But look at what USB 3.0 already has in the market. Right now you can buy a 32GB USB 3.0 drive for $50 and any computer today can get a USB 3.0 PCI slot for a mere $20, if not less.

Thunderbolt took too long to release and was released on one of the lowest selling computers in the market. If it came out on HP or Dell this would have been a different story. But on laptops that cost over $1500? On desktops that cost over $1000? There's no chance for this to become widespread.


RE: new standards?
By Pirks on 7/5/11, Rating: 0
RE: new standards?
By quiksilvr on 7/6/2011 12:47:46 AM , Rating: 2
If a product doesn't become widespread it fails. Fail doesn't mean wiped from existence it just means that it becomes a very small, niche product. Stop splitting hairs over sentences that are essentially saying this will not be successful.


RE: new standards?
By Pirks on 7/6/2011 1:15:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If a product doesn't become widespread it fails
Ferrari, Bugatti and Aston Martin are not widespread, so they fail. Say, uh, did you hit your head with any heavy objects lately?


RE: new standards?
By dark matter on 7/6/2011 2:43:07 AM , Rating: 2
Pirks.

You have to be an employee of DT, no-one could keep up this bullshit of yours for this length of time without getting paid for it.

Troll's get bored easily. You have TOO much consistency to be just a Troll. You're a shill from DT.

Fuckoff, it really bores me.


RE: new standards?
By Pirks on 7/6/11, Rating: -1
RE: new standards?
By JAB on 7/5/2011 9:13:35 PM , Rating: 3
You can not share the USB connector because the USB consortium doesn't allow it.
USB 3 is only a small fraction of the thunderbolt
The 50 dollar cable with a cip not needed if you don't mind the performance hit and or use a short cable.
You can use a hub just like USB don't know wy you are trying to make it sound like rocket science.
Hmmm not sure how you missed Apples growth it is one of the top 3 PC makers if memory serves.
The total cost of ownership on an apple is usually lower than a windows PC make that as you will but google the research.
It powered eSATA had better implementation and adoption then yes USB 3 would be enough but you would still be talking about a minimum of 3 connectors for the same use as one thunderbolt with lower bandwidth higher latency higher CPU load and reduced battery life. SATA can AMD USB can be real power hogs for laptops in comparison to certan alternatives. Outside of people on forums like this AMD old fashioned IT guys people don't get sentimental about connectors.

Don't be surprised if it gets widely adopted on the high end if you need the function it will save money and power though only after redesigning the laptop down to the chipset level.


RE: new standards?
By quiksilvr on 7/6/2011 1:03:50 AM , Rating: 2
1) What are you talking about? Both were developed by Intel (which makes it even more confusing).

2) How much of a hit is there? My guess is its quite a significant hit going passive to make it get outpaced by 6 Gbp/s SATA and 4.8 Gbp/s USB 3.0, otherwise they would have launched it with passive and say it beats those two standards.

3) Agreed its not complicated for one device but if you want to make thousands if not tens of thousands, the money adds up for manufacturers.

4) In America it's number 3 but globally its number 5. Why wouldn't you at least put it in with the top two competitors? Who pegs a golden standard on 3rd or 5th place? Furthermore, why wasn't it just spread throughout ALL top manufacturers? Why the limitations?

5) A minimum of three connectors for the same use as one Thunderbolt? For what purpose? And what are these claims about latency? That depends on what's using it. A hard drive will give you latency (sometimes as high as a whopper of 4 milliseconds) but that's through no fault of SATA or USB. It is limited by its rotational speed. Solid State negates this latency argument.

And bandwidths on even the fastest Solid State Drives have yet to push 6 Gbp/s SATA to its limit yet (unless its PCI...but its connected via PCI and reaching its potential so who cares?). And when that day comes when it surpasses SATA, they will just upgrade SATA along with it.

6) Agreed, but it has a lot of competition and its introduction was not nearly aggressive enough for this to happen.


RE: new standards?
By Bad-Karma on 7/6/2011 1:18:14 AM , Rating: 2
Quote from Anand "Light Peak isn't a protocol, but instead simply provides a new physical layer for existing connector protocols. Traffic like DVI-D, HDMI, USB, and audio can all coexist across Light Peak." http://www.anandtech.com/show/3930/intel-light-pea...

The article even mentions that the goal is to include display port, Ethernet, firewire,PCIe. Think of it as an opportunity to get everything down to one cable. Right now it's at 10Gbps but it has the promise of scaling to 100Gbs. USB just can't go there, at least not for a few more renditions.

Article: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3930/intel-light-pea...


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton














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