Orm factor* What does UD stand for anyways? my brain keeps going towards undead.

LimitbreakOr:

What does UD stand for anyways?

As Arnie would say, 'Oeltra Duraboel'

LimitbreakOr:

Orm factor* What does UD stand for anyways? my brain keeps going towards undead.

ultra durable undeads 😀

Hmmm ultra durable undead does not sit so well with a pretty meager TBW rating even though ofc 100 / 200 Still is many years of writes worth to most users

ummmm...no rgb lights?

we all know that every last thing gigabyte would sell they will slap this UD on it ... udPeanats ... Ud pencils .... Ud toilet paper ...etc etc

In another article I read, Gigabyte referred to these as "high capacity" drives.... Apparently Gigabyte doesn't understand what a "high capacity" drive actually is....

sykozis:

In another article I read, Gigabyte referred to these as "high capacity" drives.... Apparently Gigabyte doesn't understand what a "high capacity" drive actually is....

It's like they think it is still 2014.

Sata limits are reach long time ago, unless they make it very cheap, i can't see it as something interesting. or maybe cheaper +2TB. Of course they will sell it, but with new technologies out there i would not buy those UD things.

reix2x:

Sata limits are reach long time ago, unless they make it very cheap, i can't see it as something interesting. or maybe cheaper +2TB. Of course they will sell it, but with new technologies out there i would not buy those UD things.

Makes me wonder if we're going to see SATA4. SAS could get 12Gbps 5 years ago, and already supports 22.5Gbps. SAS is backward compatible with SATA (but not the other way around) so in theory we should be able to at least get the 12Gbps speeds on consumer hardware by now. M.2 still isn't a full replacement for SATA - it's still too expensive, limited by capacity, and it isn't hot-swappable (though that feature obviously is less important). I guess the problem is SATA4's speed would likely cannibalize M.2 sales, where M.2 would still be faster but by a totally irrelevant level.

schmidtbag:

Makes me wonder if we're going to see SATA4. SAS could get 12Gbps 5 years ago, and already supports 22.5Gbps. SAS is backward compatible with SATA (but not the other way around) so in theory we should be able to at least get the 12Gbps speeds on consumer hardware by now. M.2 still isn't a full replacement for SATA - it's still too expensive, limited by capacity, and it isn't hot-swappable (though that feature obviously is less important). I guess the problem is SATA4's speed would likely cannibalize M.2 sales, where M.2 would still be faster but by a totally irrelevant level.

Man i think i see you on the comments of a video on youtube (Enginering Explained), now on topic, certainly SATA4 would be nice for SSD particularly the hot swap capability, and could be possible right now. SATA 3.2 is already 5 years old, why nobody uses it? it have a woping speed of 16 Gbit/s.

reix2x:

Man i think i see you on the comments of a video on youtube (Enginering Explained), now on topic, certainly SATA4 would be nice for SSD particularly the hot swap capability, and could be possible right now. SATA 3.2 is already 5 years old, why nobody uses it? it have a woping speed of 16 Gbit/s.

Haha you would be right about that. So far, I think you're the first person to have ever made a connection between 2 unrelated online accounts of mine. As for "SATA 3.2", that is (or rather, was) actually in use, in the form of SATA Express. But being proprietary and expensive, it lost popularity and became obsoleted by U.2 and M.2. Those "16Gbps" you mention is mostly because of direct access to PCIe lanes. So, it's not as impressive as it might seem. EDIT: It seems M.2 drives are also SATA 3.2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA#3.2 Makes sense - M.2 drives are just SATA based with PCIe lanes for that extra bandwidth.

Engineering explained is a good channel, i subscribed to it long ago!!

Somewhere I did read about price fixing. But what can one expect? SATA3 bandwidth has been saturated years ago. On consumer market they can no longer differentiate themselves with higher r/w speeds. IOPS is some mythical value average consumer care little about. So there is only price. But they want their profits. So price fixing. Getting SATA4 would deliver fix for that. Over night Drives with new controller would deliver higher performance at only cost of developing that controller. And as there would be those ~525MB/s older drives and 850, 1000, 1200MB/s drives, they would have reason to differentiate. And it would be by pricing down. Because M.2 SSDs with 1000MB/s+ cost about same as SATA3 SSDs w/ 500MB/s. And only thing which allows for this is slow adoption of M.2. (But that's changing for quite some time. Almost every new MB has at least one.) And then apparently, number of slots. 2x M.2 vs 8x SATA3. That changes capacity potential over time.