ccw

经过一番折腾之后，用于搭配LGA2011 Sandy Bridge-E处理器的X79芯片组还是没能达到最初的预计水平，SATA磁盘接口只会有十个。

X79芯片组面向桌面，只有这一个版本，而对应的服务器平台则有四款不同规格的芯片组Patsburg-T/D/B/A。X79本来应该相当于第二档Patsburg-D，但因为种种问题被先后降级为Patsburg-B/A，也就是失去了四个SATA/SAS 6Gbps以及与处理器之间的PCI-E 3.0通道。

这样一来，X79芯片组的SATA磁盘接口数量被限制在十个，并且分为两组：两个SATA 6Gbps和四个SATA 3Gbps来自标准的AHCI控制器，和现在的6系列芯片组一样；其余四个SATA 6Gbps是通过存储控制器单元(SCU)加入的。

需要特别注意的是，由于来源不同，AHCI和SCU管理的SATA接口之间是不能用来组建RAID磁盘阵列的，最多只能在操作系统里进行Strip组合。

至于新平台对PCI-E 3.0扩展插槽的支持(不是PCI-E 3.0存储通道)，Intel正在努力进行相关验证，但何时能够完成、发布时能否支持还无法得到确切保证。

Sandy Bridge-E处理器、X79芯片组现在定于11月份发布，而有消息称，Intel会在年底的时候推出新步进的X79，在功能特性方面进行后续弥补。

http://news.mydrivers.com/1/201/201974.htm

PCI-E 3.0 on x79

[ 本帖最後由 ccw 於 2011-8-19 09:38 編輯 ]

ccw

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2011-8-17 12:55 發表
intel唔識整sata 3 controller?

乜要搞咁耐架咩?

It may not be as easy as it seems, the reliability of these ports is still a question,
there were some hints that the BSOD issues of OCZ V3 is due to instability of SATA3 ports per Anandtech's finding.

[ 本帖最後由 ccw 於 2011-8-17 13:22 編輯 ]

ccw

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2011-8-17 13:23 發表


amd整到6個sata 3出來, intel連6個都整到一鑊泡...

Sadly it is, while SATA3 doesn't really show its advantages except for SSDs which most computers equip only one to two.

ccw

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2011-8-17 13:35 發表

問題係intel今年既sata controller真係差左好多

I see, the stability issue of the new SATA3 ports is one of the reason why I finally picked an Intel 320 SSD for my workstation computer.

While I am not sure about how AMD is going with the SATA3, I did not study if most OCZ BSOD/freeze victims are Intel users or not.

ccw

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2011-8-17 13:43 發表

Intel 320
8MB firmware problem...

At least much better than OCZ V3, otherwise I should be able to see someone shouting in EPC
If EPC is quiet in this, it must be safe

ccw

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2011-8-17 13:47 發表

http://www.hkepc.com/6751

同埋SF-2281真係太快
出左之後, 真係少左好多人出Intel SSD

Sure I know this bug, but I cannot see a single victim in EPC,
even in other forums there is not much noise blaming Intel regarding their broken 320 SSDs.

Another reason for picking 320 is its volume, I don't really see how I can feel the high speed of 2281, but an extra of 30% in volume is rock solid, for a similar price.

ccw

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2011-8-17 14:08 發表

for better stability, you should go for 510 instead...

Really?
The warranty of 510 is shorter than 320, 5 years and 3 years,
I don't know if this is related implying the confidence of Intel to its SSDs durability.

ccw

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2011-8-17 14:18 發表

of course...

Though 510 is designed for server use, personally I pay more trust on Intel's own controller, at least it is proven in G2.
Maybe the question will fall on the 25nm NAND, their durability is open to question and issues were observed when first applied in OCZ V2.

At the moment it is still hard to say which one is more stable to go; as observed in forums, although 510 was rated by Intel as a server disk, a majority would suggest 320 for higher reliability(claims on different ground).
While being backed by a 5 years warranty, I am not worrying about the durability in my 320.

ccw

引用:

原帖由 qcmadness 於 2011-8-17 13:47 發表

http://www.hkepc.com/6751

同埋SF-2281真係太快
出左之後, 真係少左好多人出Intel SSD

FYI,
http://news.mydrivers.com/1/202/202014.htm