Over 5 years on and this image still hasn't been disproved

Over 5 years on and this image still hasn't been disproved

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-RAM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

but has it been proven?

Ram must also be slower than the HDD then because it has no sequential read pattern

But it is

...

Of course it's slower. Hdd 5400 RPM, RAM and SSD - 0 RPM.

haha good one but you can stop being retarded on purpose now

well yeah because it's true!
the absolute state of Sup Forums

But what if SSD spins?

a shitposting weeb? why i never...

It's not symmetric so it won't be as fast as an hdd.

>not using CD-RAM

>not using DVD-RAM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-RAM

>not using 5.25 floppies in a raid

>not using delay line memory
>not dying of mercury poisoning

If L1-cache and Registers are the fastest access, why don't we make everything that?

1)They take too much space.
2)Their speed partially comes from the fact that they are physically small. At the frequencies CPUs work it starts to matter. Bigger L1 cache would have bigger delay.

Speed of light limits everything.

>FTL will be achieved first not by starship engineers but by some CPU designer that rices too hard

Is this the retard containment thread?

No, it's the shitposting one.

Ah, so everyone is just pretending. Looks like I've been rused

That is one cool jet engine user.

>Overclock CPU too much
>Gain speeds faster than light
>Vegas still crashes when trying to render a movie

>Sequential read
Only relevant for archiving. Thats why people still use tapes for bulk data archive. That, and data density.

But ic could have more torque

Um, no, sweetie, each memory bank is directly, and simultaneously, accessible by the controller, hence why bigger capacity SSDs are also faster. In fact each file is spread over those memory banks. It's like raid0 of ten tribes.All red arrows should point directly to the output for this picture to be correct.

*ten drives

You don't want a lot of torque for your data though. It will be too compressed and you'll have to decompress it.

Magnet dont destroy SSDs,Just put a magnet on one end to pull the data back as it spins.

Wright Flyer 1200 RPM.
SR71 Blackbird 0 RPM.

73 Ford Pinto.
41 ft/lbs at 4600 RPM
Tesla P110d
692 ft/lbs @ 0 RPM

This image completely disregards rotational velodensity and magnetic bit rot

As a data archivist, I can't bring myself to use an SSD for anything other than the OS. If a SSD fails good fucking luck getting your data.

technically, if a hdd was fully sequential, it could potentially saturate sata too.
but ssd's are instant seek times compared to hdds, so even a 50mb read ssd would outperform a hdd
that said to get a ssd that shitty today you have to built it yourself from sd cards.

granted, I wonder why more arms were never added at 4 corners of a hdd, it would effectively double to quadruple the read/write speed, cut access times by at least 1/4th, if not lower and act as redundancy, if one arm got missalined and couldn't read, possibly one of the others could and pick up the slack.

Is this a washing machine?

>2016
>Still falling for the magnetic-rotational Jew

Shiggy

Why don't they have read platters instead of just read heads?

Unironically this.
t. save 90% of the images on a DVD-RAM2

Why don't they make circular flash chips

>jet engine
>0 RPM
are you stupid?

>are you stupid?
No more than any of the previous posters.

So what's next after SSD and HDD are obsolete?
Will we use magnets to store info next?
I'd we use magnets how will it work?

I don't want to lose the quality of my music from rotational velocidensity.

This is why NVMe drives have moved to a straight line form factor. It provides far better linear read performance than rotational disks since the data doesn't need to be unbent from circles.

NVMe also optimizes random read. A hard disk has to locate the loop of data you're asking for and unbend it. A standard SSD has to shift data around a bit like that "Rush Hour" game to slide out the piece you're asking it for. But an NVMe has all the lines of data in parallel and the PCIe just has to suck out the line you're asking for.

Why haven't we standardized on NVMe yet?

legit can't tell if your baiting.

I like my SATA I/II/III ports just like they are now. Long as they don't fuck with them and still make drives that are 100% B.C with all 3 speeds then it's all good. The only computer part I tend to buy much of anymore is HDD for server storage and backup use. I want it to stay that way. Rest of system (s) are perfectly fine so why should they get scrapped just for some new fucking port. which by the way, most 3.5 hdd are just now starting to get constant sata 1.5 transfer speeds. SATA 1.5 came out back in 2004. They still have not even hit SATA II (3.0Gbps) limit yet. Meanwhile your lan is chugging along at a puny 1 Gbps.

I have a working Baudot tape printer/reader at work that can actually interface with a modern PC through a couple contrivances
get on my level

SR71 had turbojet engines that spun at tens of thousands of rpm.

>SSD
>HDD
>no tape drives
lol, wut?