Originally Posted by rui-no-onna
Originally Posted by givmedew
I meant they are not using all the channels that they can... as in completely wasting what is available to them. So much that like I said 2 mSata drives with the same basic specs (size, sata bus speed, and memory type) are performing significantly different from one another because one will have half of what the other has. You said NAND chips so I am guessing that what I am talking about is that one of those may have 1 and the other may have 2 and the difference is night and day but the consumer does not know it.
Name me one mSATA model of the same capacity from the same manufacturer that comes in different NAND/channel configurations. Really, the primary differentiating factor when it comes to performance among mSATA drives is the controller (and that's pretty much the same case with 2.5" SSDs). NAND/channel configuration is second and again, it's the same thing we experience with 2.5" SSDs. Higher capacity SSDs generally perform better than lower capacity models.
I can name 2 but there are more...
OCZ Noctie and Intel 310 (I think it was the 310).
Either way compare them to some other drives offered at the same time with similar capacities and what do you know... Major speed differences.
It is obvious you know more about the technology behind this stuff than I do... and although I wasn't sure why it was that those drives had major performance difference I did a little searching and I think it is that they where using TSOP chips instead of BGA the TSOP chips couldn't use as many NAND channels. From my understanding HALF of the controllers available channels. So it had nothing to do with the controller... Since the controllers actual max performance was much higher than the drives total performance and other drives with the same controller where doing just fine.
So while I will admit that you know a ton more than me about the inner workings of an SSD you are a little arrogant at the same time. It wasn't the controller that was the issue it was the memory chip (I think) but I know it wasn't the actual controller.
Either way when these drives started getting popular there where drives being made that could utilize all the channels (or more of them) and drives that could not. It was not because of the amount of storage so what consumers thought where similar drives (that even had the same controller) they where getting significantly different performance.
I did not know the root cause and it may be that all new drives are BGA and can use up more channels. Again you would know more about the specifics...
Also there are still drives with TSOP memory floating around for sale... so it is still a relevant point.
It is not my job to explain the engineering side of things to potential clients it only my job to make recommendations and to know what to stay away from to know what is hocus pocus and what is the real deal. I don't need to know the exact specifics behind it but I do usually read the exact specifics to make sure the explanation is credible. I don't always understand all of and don't remember it.
Sounds like you do remember that stuff and understand it or you have a much more technical involvement and understanding in computers or at least storage. You just where not aware of the issue that was happening is all... Does mean I know more than you (I know I don't) it just means that I encountered this issue and had to research in order to explain why it was happening and how to keep it from happening again.
So please don't think that I challenged you in some way.Edited by givmedew - 6/27/13 at 8:49pm