Western Digital Working on 20,000 RPM Raptor Drive

[Mussels]

That is not true for when you are trying to read a mass amount of data. If SSD was faster for access times then the music industry would use them. Also if the 256GB Samsung is $1,000 its not worth it at all. I Could build a SCSI raid setup for that money. Or have a few Raptors in a raid.

ummm what? seriously if you think SSD's are slower in access times, you need to really get your facts straight. SSD's are in nanoseconds, mechanical drives in miliseconds. its a massive difference. the music industry dont use them.. BECAUSE THEY ARE NEW.

Congratulations on the price comment, again - these are NEW TECH. theyve barely reached the market, and only in very expensive circles... that doesnt make them useless. that makes them new, and not mass produced yet.

 

[AsRock]

dude, how old is your cheetah? i mean they build them for a while now and comparing a seven year old drive to a new one isn't that fair.

Yeah really i remember having a 3.2GB one on a Adaptec 2940. And did not think much of it even back then.

 

[jbunch07]

20k rpm huh?
im sorry but that just sounds dangerous!

 

[Breit]

the problem with ssd (at least up to now) is that they CAN be fast, but not in all cases. especially writes are horrible low and access-times for writes are WAY lower than for reads! yeah they advance over time and every new product is better than the old ones, but at least up to now they are NOT faster than a recent 15k sas or scsi disk, they not even come close in the majority of tests. only for multithreaded random access patterns the concept of ssd is superior. but as always: it depends on the application...

btw. interesting read: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/ssd-iram.html

i'm glad i got a fujitsu mba... 8)

 

[HTC]

the problem with ssd (at least up to now) is that they CAN be fast, but not in all cases. especially writes are horrible low and access-times for writes are WAY lower than for reads! yeah they advance over time and every new product is better than the old ones, but at least up to now they are NOT faster than a recent 15k sas or scsi disk, they not even come close in the majority of tests. only for multithreaded random access patterns the concept of ssd is superior. but as always: it depends on the application...

btw. interesting read: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/storage/display/ssd-iram.html

i'm glad i got a fujitsu mba... 8)

VERY interesting read!!!

DAMN: that I-RAM is AWESOME!!! Too bad the size is so small

 

[Jess Stingray]

Christ, won't need SATA-3 or anything...

 

[hat]

hold up, off topic question
ssds are just about as fast as memory then?
I can imagine feeling a lot less pain when windows starts loading stuff into the pagefile, even with a single ssd

 

[Mussels]

hold up, off topic question
ssds are just about as fast as memory then?
I can imagine feeling a lot less pain when windows starts loading stuff into the pagefile, even with a single ssd

yes thats pretty much the key behind them. they're in the 100's of MB/s range as opposed to GB/s, but remember the data when power cuts out.

The i-ram is an extreme example as it uses real ram but yeah... the access times are incredible. windows loads a lot faster (lots of small files) and you dont have to worry about defragmenting anymore.