Guest Eugene

3 Gb/sec or 300 MB/sec?

Recommended Posts

It *is* 3Gb...there's no lie there.  It's the error checking bits that make it 300 MB/s rather than 375 MB/s.

218900[/snapback]

What is 3 gbit/s?

That's like saying fast ethernet is 10 gbit/s because the cable can move the bits that fast but it's the adapter that slows it down to 100 mbit/s.

It's like saying a sector is 544 bytes instead of 512 although those 32 bytes are taken up by ECC and other stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It *is* 3Gb...there's no lie there. It's the error checking bits that make it 300 MB/s rather than 375 MB/s.

218900[/snapback]

What is 3 gbit/s?

That's like saying fast ethernet is 10 gbit/s because the cable can move the bits that fast but it's the adapter that slows it down to 100 mbit/s.

It's like saying a sector is 544 bytes instead of 512 although those 32 bytes are taken up by ECC and other stuff.

I'd say it's more like listing HDDs as 40GB when the OS only shows 38. But it's not even that -- because as I said, the number is unimportant. You'll never see it reached on that interface. It's irrelevant. And even if you DID see it reached, and the interface was maxed out, you wouldn't notice much difference, if any. So part of me thinks that the whole issue of what they call it is irrelevent.

If I wanted to complain about something, it would be the use of the interface speed to advertise the drive at all. It's SATA, or SATA2, or ATA, etc. Pretending that 3 Gbps or 300 MB/s versus 1.5 Gbps or 150 MB/s makes any performance difference is what is misleading. Not the 2 bits of error correction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer 300 MB/s (of course meaning 300 000 000 Bytes per second)

not "sec" since it's not SI-standard.

I prefer this becaus its the most comparable number and Byte is more used then bit.

But in the long run, i see the meaning of "byte" is vanishing. I dont want another counting method like "dosen". SI-standard is always using 10, 10^2, 10^3 and so on. Suddenly using an "8" would undermine the very nice SI-system. In the long run i wold prefer that the "byte" is degraded and "bit" becomes the dominating way of writing numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from the fact that 3Gb/s is wrong, the general consumer can not tell the difference between a little "b" and a big "B." For the sanity of techs everywhere, please let them use 300MB/s!

Naturally marketing will stick us with the former.

On the other hand, I can understand why they used bits for the baud rate. 56K sounds a helluva lot cooler than .007MB/s! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now