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

By on August 9, 2013, 9:43 AM
hdd, storage, ssd, sata, sata express, sshd, sata-io, sata 3.2

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 solid state drives the protocol they need.

SATA Express works by utilizing two lanes of PCI Express 3.0 for faster drives that require up to 2 GB/s of bandwidth, or standard SATA 6 Gbps (0.6 GB/s) for slower items such as hard drives. Traditionally PCIe has been reserved solely for graphics cards, expansion cards and some high-end storage drives, but with SATA Express both SATA and PCIe technologies can coexist.

Other benefits to SATA revision 3.2 include support for SATA drives using the M.2 form factor, as well as the Universal Storage Module (USM) that allows removable and expandable storage in devices like Ultrabooks. For embedded solutions, the microSSD standard is supported for single-chip SATA drives, and for hybrid drives a new mechanism called Hybrid Information improves drive performance.

On the energy efficiency side, DevSleep has been included in SATA 3.2, which almost shuts down a drive so that power consumption is kept to a minimum, but at the same time it allows it to turn back on virtually instantly. Transitional Energy Reporting in SATA 3.2 also provides more advanced power management, which combined with DevSleep should allow for instant-on laptops with long standby times.

As with previous revisions to the SATA specification, it will take time for component manufacturers to support the latest version in their products, but as SSDs continue to get faster with each release, support shouldn't be too far away.




User Comments: 19

Got something to say? Post a comment
1 person liked this | tipstir tipstir, TS Ambassador, said:

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 RenGood08 said:

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

1 person liked this | JC713 JC713 said:

I wonder when we will see chipsets that support this.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Was there a SATA 3.1 revision?

JC713 JC713 said:

Was there a SATA 3.1 revision?

Seems so xD.

Skidmarksdeluxe Skidmarksdeluxe said:

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.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:
  • 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.

Skidmarksdeluxe Skidmarksdeluxe said:

I understand it all but the naming seems stupid.

JC713 JC713 said:

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.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

USB 3.1 isnt as big of a leap as SATA 3.2.
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.

JC713 JC713 said:

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

LinkedKube LinkedKube, TechSpot Project Baby, said:

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

1 person liked this | captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

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

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

to finding the best internet porn that 1Mbs DSL and SATA 2 will allow me to indulge in
You could opt to leave this shit 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.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

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.

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.

Swanen said:

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

1 person liked this | cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

"SATA 6 Gbps (0.6 GB/s)" shouldn't it be 0.75 GB/s ?
Not when 2 extra bits per byte are used for error checking.

SATA revision 3.0 - 6 Gbit/s - 600 MB/s

Serial ATA International Organization presented the draft specification of SATA 6 Gbit/s physical layer in July 2008, and ratified its physical layer specification on August 18, 2008. The full 3.0 standard was released on May 27, 2009. It runs with a native transfer rate of 6.0 Gbit/s, and taking 8b/10b encoding into account, the maximum uncoded transfer rate is 4.8 Gbit/s (600 MB/s). The theoretical burst throughput of SATA 6.0 Gbit/s is double that of SATA revision 2.0. The 3.0 specification contains the following changes:

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

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

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

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

SATA revision 3.0 - 6 Gbit/s - 600 MB/s

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.

Load all comments...

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.