- Sep 28, 2002
- 226
- 0
- 0
I was just pondering the huge load times of Sims 2 just a while ago, and an idea came to mind. I have heard that increasing transfer speed of the HD's only provides marginal performance increase, as there is not much difference between ATA66 and ATA100. SATA I is only a little more faster than ATA100, and SATA II is only slightly better after that.
The problem is that the maximum transfer speed can never be fully realized unless the data the system is looking for happens to be at the exact spot the head happens to be at that time (which is pretty much 1:1 Trillion chance). Thus, the real bottleneck of HD access is head movement. If that can be eliminated, then the transfer rates can be fully realized.
Then it came to mind that we already have permanent memory which does not require a head -- flash memory. Why don't manufacturers like WD, Samsung, etc, just look into making "Flash Memory" like HD's, instead of the traditional platter spinning setup? It is already in use in most electronics...
The problem is that the maximum transfer speed can never be fully realized unless the data the system is looking for happens to be at the exact spot the head happens to be at that time (which is pretty much 1:1 Trillion chance). Thus, the real bottleneck of HD access is head movement. If that can be eliminated, then the transfer rates can be fully realized.
Then it came to mind that we already have permanent memory which does not require a head -- flash memory. Why don't manufacturers like WD, Samsung, etc, just look into making "Flash Memory" like HD's, instead of the traditional platter spinning setup? It is already in use in most electronics...
