SATA2 3Gb???!!!

[MrControversial]

I was reading a manual and it said that SATAII can do 3Gb/s. Is that a typo or correct? I thought SATAII was 300Mb/s.

 

[MustISO]

3 Gigabits of bandwidth for SATA II.

 

[MrControversial]

Got it.

 

[Duvie]

I thought it was 300mb/s as well since SATA (the original) is only 150mb/s...

OH I see...It is 300 mebabytes per second versus MustISO saying Gigabits...same thing then....

Edit: to clarifify I meant 300megabytes would be 3000megabits and thus 3 gigabits, but only .3 gigabytes....

sounds like marketing ploys!!! We all know it likely wont deliver sustained throughput much over 100megabytes or .1 gigabits anyways...look at SATA I for the example

 

[Philippine Mango]

Why are they saying the bandwidth for SATA in gigabits and not bytes???? This giga and mega bits thing is getting out of hand and is really irritating!

 

[Benmohr]

Some manufactures have implemented some of the SATA II specs. I have only found that Hitachi have implemented the 300 GB/s drives.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by: Duvie
I thought it was 300mb/s as well since SATA (the original) is only 150mb/s...

OH I see...It is 300 mebabytes per second versus MustISO saying Gigabits...same thing then....

Edit: to clarifify I meant 300megabytes would be 3000megabits and thus 3 gigabits, but only .3 gigabytes....

sounds like marketing ploys!!! We all know it likely wont deliver sustained throughput much over 100megabytes or .1 gigabits anyways...look at SATA I for the example

SATA II is capable of 3Gbps for the interface which equals 375MB/s. 20% of the bandwidth is reserved for CRC and command overhead. This leaves 300MB/s (2.4Gbps) available data bandwidth, which is why you see both 3Gbps and 300MB/s quoted for SATA II even though they aren't the same transfer rate.

And as always, this needs the disclaimer that 300MB/s is the bandwidth available to drives through the interface, it is NOT the actual transfer rate of SATA II drives which right now is around 60-65MB/s max.

For some reason basically all serial transfers (fibre channel, USB, networks, firewire, SATA, SAS, etc..) are given in bits/sec rather than bytes/sec. It's been this way for basically ever so it could be considered more habit than marketing.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Pariah

Originally posted by: Duvie
I thought it was 300mb/s as well since SATA (the original) is only 150mb/s...

OH I see...It is 300 mebabytes per second versus MustISO saying Gigabits...same thing then....

Edit: to clarifify I meant 300megabytes would be 3000megabits and thus 3 gigabits, but only .3 gigabytes....

sounds like marketing ploys!!! We all know it likely wont deliver sustained throughput much over 100megabytes or .1 gigabits anyways...look at SATA I for the example

SATA II is capable of 3Gbps for the interface which equals 375MB/s. 20% of the bandwidth is reserved for CRC and command overhead. This leaves 300MB/s (2.4Gbps) available data bandwidth, which is why you see both 3Gbps and 300MB/s quoted for SATA II even though they aren't the same transfer rate.

And as always, this needs the disclaimer that 300MB/s is the bandwidth available to drives through the interface, it is NOT the actual transfer rate of SATA II drives which right now is around 60-65MB/s max.

For some reason basically all serial transfers (fibre channel, USB, networks, firewire, SATA, SAS, etc..) are given in bits/sec rather than bytes/sec. It's been this way for basically ever so it could be considered more habit than marketing.

Thanks for the info!!!