For my ITX motherboard it is on the backside, with plenty of unused space where perhaps additional ones could be added.Isn't that space on the board they consume pretty much unused space anyway?
For my ITX motherboard it is on the backside, with plenty of unused space where perhaps additional ones could be added.Isn't that space on the board they consume pretty much unused space anyway?
Well I havn't seen board with backside M.2.
In most board the only available space is between PCE ports and when ur gaming the VGA will literally be spitting hot air to the drive and we know how susceptible these drives are about the heat. Also you can have only 1 or 2(MSI now show a 4 stack drives array but it only make the thermal trothing problem bigger). and im sure the drives makes the boards more expensive than just normal ports since they require more engineering time to not just make the traces but move components around them.
I built an mITX system for my fiance in late 2015 that had the M2 slot on the back of the board. It was a Gigabyte Z170 board I believe.
The cooling of M2 drives AFAIK is not an issue outside stress tests & benchmarks.
On the flip-side of placing these drives close to possibly hot gpus, the gpus themselves will get better cooling, IMO. Consider that the fans at the front of the case can now get their air to (or out of) the motherboard directly, without cables , drives and cages in the way. This is very important
I have bad experience with seagate myself, never going to buy another drive from them again. But have good experience with WD and hitachi. And my argument was not that M2 are not useful but that it is not the long term solution to the problem.
Would a quad core zen with 8 logical cores be able to replace 8 physical Jaguar cores in every situation that could arise in the Xbox library? Its tiny too, Zens gonna be like 3x it's size at least.
Assuming Excavator has 30% faster IPC than Jaguar and Zen has 40% over Excavator, we get 82% faster IPC total. Let's be conservative and estimate SMT adds 20%. Total performance per core would thus be 2.18x, assuming identical clock rate. Now add a modest clock rate increase for Zen: 1.6 GHz -> 2.5 GHz (+56%). We are now at 3.4x per core. 4 core Zen should thus beat 8 core Jaguar handily. Even at very conservative clock rate.im no expert but zen cores and jaguar core are even in the same league. you can answer the question simply by seeing the difference in single threat between jaguar and excavator and add 40% to get to zen that will tell how much faster the zen core is compare to jaguar(even if it will be just a raw estimate) then take core numbers into account with SMT core = 25%(since delv will use it to its full potential).
I didn't mean to take a stab at Seagate. Rather, at hard disks in general. Now that that SSDs have matured mostly, I 'feel' (it is just a feeling, real data which I'm unaware of may contradict it) hard disks are less reliable than their NAND alternatives.
http://www.redgamingtech.com/exclusive-interview-with-amds-robert-hallock/
There is not much news but here it is if someone wants.
Neural Net Prediction: This one is super nerd-level exciting for me. Oh man. Inside the Zen architecture is an actual artificial neural network that is learning and predicting what instructions inside the CPU will be required. This learning AI is also predictive just like Smart Prefetch, but instead of predicting data, NNP is concerned with knowing what instructions and pathways inside the chip will be needed for executing an application. Staying on top of how an application can best flow through the chip also neutralizes a potential source of latency penalties.
...
RH: The “buffer” for pattern learning is not megabytes big or anything like that, so there is not room to remember hours or days of history. The buffer is typically flushed when you move from one app to the next, or when the system is restarted.
...