Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming.threads > #4403
| From | Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming.threads |
| Subject | 3D XPoint(of Intel Optane) is better than Z-NAND |
| Date | 2018-06-09 17:42 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <pfhhkg$k3t$2@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
Hello,
I will explain sequential writes and random writes, so that
you understand that Z-NAND that is Samsung's tweaked flash technology
has limitations, and 3D XPoint(of Intel Optane) is better than Z-NAND:
When people talk about sequential vs random writes to a file, they're
generally drawing a distinction between writing without intermediate
seeks ("sequential"), vs. a pattern of seek-write-seek-write-seek-write,
etc. ("random").
So now read the following to understand:
The random write speed rating on Intel's P4800X is only 9% slower than
the random read speed, while the Samsung SZ985 will have a random write
speed that is 77% slower than random reads. Samsung has not been able to
overcome all of the limitations of flash memory, but they have produced
some impressive improvements.
Read more here:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/samsung-launches-z-ssd-sz985-up-to-800gb-of-z-nand.813279/
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Back to comp.programming.threads | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
3D XPoint(of Intel Optane) is better than Z-NAND Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com> - 2018-06-09 17:42 -0400
csiph-web