Thread: Samsung Launching PCs With 32GB SSD

Originally Posted by From the Article

The drive’s read time of 53 Mpbs is three times faster than hard drives, while write time of 28 Mbps is 150 percent faster.

Even if by "Mpbs" and "Mbps" they mean MB/s, I'd hardly say that it's much faster than "hard drives". More like it's on par with a typical low-end desktop drive.

If they wanted to point out performance advantages they should have mentioned seek times, or no spin-up time (like in a HD).

Originally Posted by eCar™

Even if by "Mpbs" and "Mbps" they mean MB/s, I'd hardly say that it's much faster than "hard drives". More like it's on par with a typical low-end desktop drive.

If they wanted to point out performance advantages they should have mentioned seek times, or no spin-up time (like in a HD).

I think the lack moving parts and perhaps lower power consumption would make it great for the CarPC. Also consider that many people are using slower laptop drives in the 4200-5400RPM range, not everbody has a 7200RPM 250GB drive or 10,000RPM raptor. The Seagate Momentus 100GB has Maximum transfer speed of 46.9 and avg rate of 27.9, storage review testing.

Another key issue is that this tecnhnology is finally coming to the consumer at a reasonable price. RAM stoarage isn't anything new, recall platypus ram storage? It should be faster, but as long as it's not slower it still has adavatges in the mobile environment.

It's another step towards solid state storage and I felt it was news worthy

Bob,

I wasn't trying to say that the drives are slow, that the tech isn't interesting, or that it has no place in a carPC.

I was merely pointing out that this particular article was poorly written. For instance, normally drives are rated in MB/s (megabytes per second), while they stated Mbps (megabits per second). I reckon that the author doesn't know there is a difference.

And, if 53 Mbps (not MB/s) is correct, then the drives are considerably slower than even a very old 2.5" drive.

Plus by saying that "it's 3 times faster than hard drives", in my mind, makes me think it's 3 times faster than the fastest hard drives that are currently available. Not that it's 3 times faster than one of the slower hard drives that may be currently in use. Heck, why not say it's 1000 times faster than hard drives, and just leave out the fact that you are comparing it to a drive from the 1980s.

Originally Posted by eCar™

Bob,

I wasn't trying to say that the drives are slow, that the tech isn't interesting, or that it has no place in a carPC.

I was merely pointing out that this particular article was poorly written. For instance, normally drives are rated in MB/s (megabytes per second), while they stated Mbps (megabits per second). I reckon that the author doesn't know there is a difference.

And, if 53 Mbps (not MB/s) is correct, then the drives are considerably slower than even a very old 2.5" drive.

Plus by saying that "it's 3 times faster than hard drives", in my mind, makes me think it's 3 times faster than the fastest hard drives that are currently available. Not that it's 3 times faster than one of the slower hard drives that may be currently in use. Heck, why not say it's 1000 times faster than hard drives, and just leave out the fact that you are comparing it to a drive from the 1980s.

Well I can't say what the author was meaning to write, but I would assume it is indeed 53MB/s. I can't imagine any computer maker using storage that transfers at 53mbps, that would be silly. It migh also be a sustained speed as opposed to burst speed we see with platter hard drives.
Some more articles on it, no hard numbers, but it does go in to power consumption:
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx...ews__business/
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech...FREE&cm_ite=NA
http://www.physorg.com/news67620189.html

Originally Posted by Silentbob343

Well I can't say what the author was meaning to write, but I would assume it is indeed 53MB/s. I can't imagine any computer maker using storage that transfers at 53mbps, that would be silly.

I agree.

I still can't understand how one could say this is "3 times faster than hard drives", when there are plenty of hard drives that are actually faster than 53 MB/s (sustained speed).

I think the biggest advantage to this would be the shock resistance. It's my understanding that using a traditional HD in a car cuts the life span of the unit considerably. I think that when the price comes down a little these HD's will be perfect for CarPC applications.

Originally Posted by crazyiball

I think the biggest advantage to this would be the shock resistance. It's my understanding that using a traditional HD in a car cuts the life span of the unit considerably. I think that when the price comes down a little these HD's will be perfect for CarPC applications.

no real proof to that as of yet

cant prove that because a drive fails its due to it being in a car, drives fail in desktops, so.., yeah, u cant really say its because its in the car