NATO said:
Maximum throughput for consoles if they used SATA3 would be 600 MB/s even with an SSD, both Xbox one and PS4 use SATA2 which is a maximum throughput of 300MB/s PS4 pro uses a SATA3 controller but throughput is bottlenecked by the data bus. meanwhile my mechanical drive achieves a maximum of 120 MB/s, costs $65 for 2tb. so again, you can take your ssd and put it on a dark shelf where the sun doesn't shine, and you can take the claim of GB/s over SATA and take a hike because it's nonsense. either that or you can't tell the difference between gigabyte and gigabit, neither outcome paints you in a good light. And if for whatever reason you're harping on about PC, we're talking about games library storage here, and as I've already said , the additional price for less space in exchange for slightly faster load times isn't worth it, I'll take capacity over speed for anything but an OS install any day of the week, people who use SSD's for all of their game installs are idiots. |
I'm talking about human technology being IO kneecapped by shitty storage contraptions for 6 decades in general.
I'm just laughing at how you think 120-300 MB/s is acceptable (and even then only sequential...Not real world where IOPS drops to KILOBYTES /s as in 1980s speeds in 2017!) when CPU/RAM are able to run 60,000+ MB/s. It's pathetic.
3D X Point and other non volatile universal main memories cannot come fast enough.
I dabble in ECE, VHDL, and love assembly coding, it would be amazing if I did that not knowing the difference between a bit and a byte lol.
