TechSpot

SATA 3.2 finalized, includes SATA Express for 2 GB/s of bandwidth

By Scorpus
Aug 9, 2013
Post New Reply
  1. SATA-IO, the group in charge of maintaining the SATA specification, has announced (PDF) that revision 3.2 of SATA has been finalized. Importantly this revision brings SATA Express, which melds SATA and PCI Express for bandwidth of up to 2 GB/s, giving high-speed...

    Read more
     
  2. tipstir

    tipstir TS Ambassador Posts: 4,752   +96

    New tech always good for the next generation of computer systems to speed up any bottle-necking in the sub file system and offer more energy savings to one endless high cost bill from electric grid!
     
    RenGood08 likes this.
  3. RenGood08

    RenGood08 TS Booster Posts: 191   +13

    Hmmm. They get a computer pushed out that holds this technology, I will certainly consider investing in it.
     
  4. JC713

    JC713 TS Evangelist Posts: 7,080   +920

    I wonder when we will see chipsets that support this.
     
    RenGood08 likes this.
  5. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TechSpot Paladin Posts: 6,393   +1,588

    Was there a SATA 3.1 revision?
     
  6. JC713

    JC713 TS Evangelist Posts: 7,080   +920

    Seems so xD.
     
  7. Skidmarksdeluxe

    Skidmarksdeluxe TS Evangelist Posts: 3,420   +821

    I wish they'd make their minds up about the naming convention. First we had SATA, then SATA 3 Gbps and now SATA 6 Gbps. Why 3.2? To me it sound like they're regressing back to the 2nd generation of SATA.
     
  8. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TechSpot Paladin Posts: 6,393   +1,588

    • SATA1 - 1.5G
    • SATA2 - 3G
    • SATA3 - 6G
    • SATA3.2 - 16G
    I don't see where there is regression with the revision numbers. I am curious as to why it is not called SATA 4. I wonder if it has to do with the same reasoning as to why USB 3.1, was not labeled as USB 4.
     
  9. Skidmarksdeluxe

    Skidmarksdeluxe TS Evangelist Posts: 3,420   +821

    I understand it all but the naming seems stupid.
     
  10. JC713

    JC713 TS Evangelist Posts: 7,080   +920

    USB 3.1 isnt as big of a leap as SATA 3.2. I think Sata 3.2 should have either been Sata 4 or Sata 16Gb/s.
     
  11. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TechSpot Paladin Posts: 6,393   +1,588

    I don't know, the power specifications in USB 3.1 was drastically changed. Power specifications alone, would have been enough to warrant USB 4.0 revision. USB 3.1 makes it sound as if there was a minor alteration. And SATA 3.2 does the same thing, by making it seem as if there was a minor alteration. If you ask me, both USB 3.1 and SATA 3.2 are completely different architects and should reflect so in revision numbers.
     
     
  12. JC713

    JC713 TS Evangelist Posts: 7,080   +920

    Yeah. I feel like that 3.2 label will lure non-technical people away from upgrading since they think it is minor.
     
  13. LinkedKube

    LinkedKube TechSpot Project Baby Posts: 4,266   +42

    As long as the Sata ports aren't purple and yellow idc if they call em SATA-F1
     
  14. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 11,053   +970

    After agonizing and some careful deliberation over all the comments in this thread, I have decided the best name for it would be, SATA-FU........And also that I would rededicate myself, with the utmost vigor, to finding the best internet porn that 1Mbs DSL and SATA 2 will allow me to indulge in as an alternative to further posts in this thread..
     
    misor likes this.
  15. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TechSpot Paladin Posts: 6,393   +1,588

    You could opt to leave this **** in your own head. When I get ready for smut talk, I will go looking for it. At the moment, I'm on a technical forum.

    I'm thinking of fixing an image in your honor, to protest porn comments on TechSpot. In your honor because you are the only one who has made it their life ambition to spam TS with your porn desires. It's gonna be a message to remember and tell our grand kids about.
     
  16. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 11,053   +970

    You know, the mention of porn, isn't porn.....Need I repeat that for clarity?

    While we're on the subject, your paranoid delusions of knowing it all and moderator-hood are getting a bit tedious in and of themselves.

    I used to do the "angry and alienated man shtick", but now I come for the laughs. Which, BTW, you're not one of.

    Fix all the pictures you want. You know where you can put them.
     
  17. Swanen

    Swanen TS Rookie

    "SATA 6 Gbps (0.6 GB/s)" shouldn't it be 0.75 GB/s ?
     
  18. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TechSpot Paladin Posts: 6,393   +1,588

    Not when 2 extra bits per byte are used for error checking.

    SATA revision 3.0 - 6 Gbit/s - 600 MB/s
     
    Darth Shiv likes this.
  19. Darth Shiv

    Darth Shiv TS Evangelist Posts: 1,184   +177

    This is due to be in Haswell-E. Looking forward to it. The spec is long overdue!
     
  20. Darth Shiv

    Darth Shiv TS Evangelist Posts: 1,184   +177

    Yes - basically tonnes of different "encoding losses". The "constant" in the spec is the bitrate (as opposed to the byte rate) which is why they talk about bus speeds in bits per second and not bytes. Bits don't exclusively refer to usable data but instead the data that goes over the channel. Bytes implies the data you actually use.
     


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.