Seagate shows off 6Gbps SATA3 hard drive transfer speed

Partnering up with AMD, on Monday Seagate announced the latest Serial ATA specification: SATA3. The new specification offers hard drive transfer speeds of up to 6Gbps, which is around 600MBps.

This new specification was developed by the Serial ATA International Organization, in order to provide a hefty upgrade from today's SATA2 specification. So just how much of an upgrade is it? Your average SATA2 drive today can offer hard drive transfer speeds of up to 3Gbps, which is roughly 300MBps, so in theory SATA3 will be twice as fast. As CNET notes, it's important to know that software and hardware holds back these speeds, so in reality they're about 100MBps less than they could be. Never-the-less, this will leave you with a hard drive that can transfer 500MBps, and that's not something to laugh at.

Most importantly, the newly developed interface will be backwards-compatible with all previous SATA standards, so you won't have to upgrade cables or connectors; this will save consumers a nice bit of cash when they're deciding to upgrade (when SATA3 is released, of course). SATA3 brings with it better power management and native command queuing, which will generally increase system performance.

Seagate is apparently in the last stages of development of a SATA3 hard drive, and you can expect one by the end of this year. Additionally, AMD will fully support the new standard with its current 750 chipset and all future chipsets.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Wintek to supply touch panels for Apple netbook

Next Story

YouTube to block all premium music videos in the UK

47 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

This is an awesome news. I have seen how the speeds have increased from the old HDD's (1 GB) to the new +500 GB HDD's. And SATA has been a cheaper and faster solution for this. I have seen that sometimes I easily get a speed of 100 MB/s HDD to HDD or at times I have also seen a 4 GB file getting transferred HDD to HDD within 4 seconds I don't know exactly how but its amazing. This is all on 3 Gbps. And now its 6 Gbps its gonna be really cool and as far as technology and software development is considered all this speed is really needed to keep things up to the mark.

For example, just imagine using Vista on a IDE HDD with Core 2 Duo and 4 gigs of ram. Would it give any better performance ? No.

Interface speeds have never been a problem, the problem has always been the physical limits of the rotating disks and it's data speed.

wrack said,
Interface speeds have never been a problem, the problem has always been the physical limits of the rotating disks and it's data speed.

True, but since the SSD doesn't have that problem....

Airlink said,
True, but since the SSD doesn't have that problem....

Right...but even SSDs aren't that fast yet. They should be, but they aren't. Unless you are talking about out-of-consumer hands stuff. Like the stuff the military puts on jets.

I'm going to have to side with the "don't hold your breath" opinion. Current hard drives don't take advantage of the full bandwidth the current technology offers (even high end, expensive, hardware doesn't). Eventually it will, so it is good that they are coming up with a new standard. It is also a good idea to start including the new standard on computers when it is available, so that when the devices are produced for the masses it will be an option. Next year? Nah... the year after that? Maybe...

Not a lot of people seem to have noticed that SAS exists. SAS (Serial Attached SCSI) is now available on a lot of new motherboards (I7 generation) for consumers. The fastest SATA drive is the 10,000 RPM Western Digital VelociRaptor. With SAS there are some 15,000 RPM drives available that boast some ~2ms response time faster than Raptor. It comes in either 3 Gbps or 6 Gbps, just as fast as SATA would allow except the SAS hard drives have obvious faster response times.

Persephone said,
I can't wait until I'm building my next computer :D


Well, I sure as heck would not use a Seagate drive. WD or Samsung. ;-)

afusion said,
I thought you were a mac girl..

afusionTM

I am, primarily, but I have other computers knocking around for various things. Geekiness > Mac loyalty.

After my bad experience with Seagate Barracuda hdd, i just get so ****d when i hear their name. Lost all my years of data (u can consider it as porn or whatever).

I swear .... i am never buying a Seagate ever and wont even recommend it. They just handled the problem unprofessionally with delay of firmware, wrong untested firmware updates etc and all that crap i experienced is probably the biggest bad experience i ever had.

stop the crap... how do i backup 3*500GB hdd ?? Buy another 3 seagate hdd? or keep wait untill i get them bricked and send it for RMA :(

I'm afraid that's your problem rakeshishere, if you don't backup then don't cry when a drive fails and lose the data on the disk.

Any, yes any Hard Drive can fail and if you have no backups then that's self inflicted. Next time plan how you will back up the data then you won't have a problem.

Yes, you actually should have bought another 3 drives if the data is that important to you... It's all the cost of doing business. It's not like Seagate is the only manufacturer that has failed drives either.

I am not whining but any hard drive wont fail within 3-4 months of its purchase. I did backup some of things like my project files, itunes music, dvd movie backups but still had to loose so much that i really couldnt keep a good track since i thought i'll just buy a bigger hdd in 2-3 years and replace it in case this crashes.


My comment is no way related to this article but it simply wants to state, just dont buy SATA 3 hdd as soon as its released.. Remember all the 1TB hdd issues on seagate forums.. Give it a while and buy if you feel its worth it but i for sure wont ever be buying a seagate ever

If I had 1500 GB of irreplaceable and important data, I would have the appropriate back up system to keep it safe.

I certainly wouldn't randomly update the firmware without backups (which everyone knows is risky).

rakeshishere said,
After my bad experience with Seagate Barracuda hdd, i just get so ****d when i hear their name. Lost all my years of data (u can consider it as porn or whatever).

I swear .... i am never buying a Seagate ever and wont even recommend it. They just handled the problem unprofessionally with delay of firmware, wrong untested firmware updates etc and all that crap i experienced is probably the biggest bad experience i ever had.


I agree with you. I too will never buy a Seagate. However, I learned long ago with a 80 MB (yes, MB) drive.

Don't let people hammer on you about not having a backup. You bought brand new drives, they failed. That's like me buying a new car, having it break down and having people say, "you should have bought a backup car."

FWIW, hope you never lose your data again.

rakeshishere said,
stop the crap... how do i backup 3*500GB hdd ?? Buy another 3 seagate hdd? or keep wait untill i get them bricked and send it for RMA :(

You always have to consider the costs of backing up the data. No data storage is fool proof.

RAID 0 said,
Don't let people hammer on you about not having a backup. You bought brand new drives, they failed. That's like me buying a new car, having it break down and having people say, "you should have bought a backup car."

They're called courtesy cars, and if you don't get one, you should have bought better breakdown cover.

If you choose not to backup, then that's your problem. Sure the HDD manufacturer is to blame for the hardware failure, but they'll replace the hardware, you put the software on it, therefore the burden is yours alone to keep a backup system.

Do you think major corporations are allowed to just blame the HDD manufacturer when they lose a few TB of data? Damn right they're not.

Majesticmerc said,
They're called courtesy cars, and if you don't get one, you should have bought better breakdown cover.


I do have that coverage; my Prelude only gets the best! :-P

I would just like to give one message, as far as performance and reliability is considered, Seagate has been upto the mark and is the best. Whatever technology is present is developed by humans? If you do not make mistake you are not human. So, at some point there can be errors which may create huge problem as in the case of Seagate. So, I would expect everyone to forgive Seagate and still buy Seagate products ( I am not a part of Seagate but I love Seagate). I too have the same 500 GB with the fault but luckily I got the one with fixed firmware. So, here is some part where even the luck plays. I wud still recommend that the Seagate is the best of all.

TR2006LH said,
I would just like to give one message, as far as performance and reliability is considered, Seagate has been upto the mark and is the best. Whatever technology is present is developed by humans? If you do not make mistake you are not human. So, at some point there can be errors which may create huge problem as in the case of Seagate. So, I would expect everyone to forgive Seagate and still buy Seagate products ( I am not a part of Seagate but I love Seagate). I too have the same 500 GB with the fault but luckily I got the one with fixed firmware. So, here is some part where even the luck plays. I wud still recommend that the Seagate is the best of all.


ROFL! That made me laugh, thanks.

Never-the-less, this will leave you with a hard drive that can transfer 500MBps, and that's not something to laugh at.

haha.. 500MBps! Don't hold your breath people. That speed is the interface bandwidth, not the actual real read/write speed. SATA2 has theoretical bandwidth of 300MB/s, yet no drive on the market can manage that. Fastest are around 120-140MB/s.. and those drives cost $$$ and spin at 15k RPM.

Andre said,
haha.. 500MBps! Don't hold your breath people. That speed is the interface bandwidth, not the actual real read/write speed. SATA2 has theoretical bandwidth of 300MB/s, yet no drive on the market can manage that. Fastest are around 120-140MB/s.. and those drives cost $$$ and spin at 15k RPM.

If you read it again, the theoretical maximum isn't 500... its 800.
The interface bandwidth is 800, so yeah you'll get about 500.

cybertimber2008 said,
If you read it again, the theoretical maximum isn't 500... its 800.
The interface bandwidth is 800, so yeah you'll get about 500.

And if you read it again I nowhere said 500 was the theoretical speed. And if you wish to nitpick, then it's 600, not 800. 6Gbps is 600MBps. SATA interface uses 10bits to encode 8bits. So 6Gb is actually 600MB in SATA terms, nowhere near 800.

OPaul said,

No it's not. 6Gbps is 715 MBps.

Sigh.. -_-

http://www.villagegeek.com/Archives/WhatsNew/SATAII_6-06.htm

...Serial ATA transmits only a single bit per clock, the serial bus may be run at a much higher speed to compensate for the loss of parallelism. Serial ATA was introduced with a bandwidth of 1500Mbits/sec, or 1.5Gbits/sec. Because data is encoded using 8b/10b encoding (an 80% efficient encoding used with digital differential signaling to maintain a constant average “DC” bias point)...

SATA 6Gbits/s
6000MHz embedded clock
x 1 bit per clock
x 80% for 8b10b encoding
/ 8 bits per byte
= 600 MBytes/sec

6000 * 0.80 / 8 = 600MBytes/s

I should also point out that it should be Gibits and MiBytes, but nobody really uses that terminology anyway.

Andre said,
And if you read it again I nowhere said 500 was the theoretical speed. And if you wish to nitpick, then it's 600, not 800. 6Gbps is 600MBps. SATA interface uses 10bits to encode 8bits. So 6Gb is actually 600MB in SATA terms, nowhere near 800.

If you re-read it again you said 500 is the interface bandwidth which is the theoretical speed.

Glendi said,
If you re-read it again you said 500 is the interface bandwidth which is the theoretical speed.

Thanks Glendi. That's exactly what I was reffering to.

Sata 3 drive will be cool. But please put more effort in bringing SSD's price down so they can become more mainstream.

warwagon said,
Sata 3 drive will be cool. But please put more effort in bringing SSD's price down so they can become more mainstream.


YES! It's weird, none of the hard drive makers (Seagate, WD, Maxtor)
are releasing SSDs. You'd think they'd be all about it since it's you know... the future of storage.

as it's "the future of storage", I'm sure all companies will first try to squeeze all the life they can out of existing technology, before attempting to release SSDs on the mainstream market...

pjak said,
as it's "the future of storage", I'm sure all companies will first try to squeeze all the life they can out of existing technology, before attempting to release SSDs on the mainstream market...


I agree, what I find funny is the main-stream manufacturers have nothing to offer. I wonder when Western Digital will have an SSD for sale?

RAID 0 said,
YES! It's weird, none of the hard drive makers (Seagate, WD, Maxtor)
are releasing SSDs. You'd think they'd be all about it since it's you know... the future of storage.

I would guess this is because of the vast difference in producing HDDs and SSDs. They would have to completely change their manufacturing lines.

wow, i can hardly wait to build a new computer in 2010 (after i graduate) .. then i shall drink beer and watch pron in HD and play games till i get sich of my own smell ... yeah ..

This looks like awesome news, but the article got me more excited than should be reality. The Article made me feel like Seagate was showing off HDDs that could deliver 500MBps speeds, but I'm sure they are RAID 0 volumes of at least a few disks...

Frazell Thomas said,
This looks like awesome news, but the article got me more excited than should be reality. The Article made me feel like Seagate was showing off HDDs that could deliver 500MBps speeds, but I'm sure they are RAID 0 volumes of at least a few disks...

Did you see that article on Engadget/Gizmodo (or both) that showed off a whole bunch of RAIDed SSDs? They had massive speed...opened all of Microsoft Office in half a second It's madness. Do want.