Thursday, April 12th 2012

7 mm Won't Cut It, Intel Wants 5 mm-Thick Drives for Ultrabooks

Custodian of the Ultrabook specification, Intel pushed the storage industry to churn out slimmer devices to go with increasingly slimmer Ultrabooks sold by the various partner ODMs in the ecosystem. Even as HDD and SSD makers have only just come up with 7 mm-thick storage devices, Intel has a fresh list of changes it wishes to see with storage devices in the very near future, to be able to make it to the constantly-evolving Ultrabook specification. Intel wants near-future storage devices (SSDs and HDDs) to be no thicker than 5 mm.

Further, it wants to see the standard SATA host interface changed from "around" (out of) form, to "along" (inside) form host interface, which further slims down the drive compartment. These proposals were floated at IDF, Beijing. While coming up with slimmer SSDs was never really a tough task for SSD makers, as SSDs are essentially just millimeter-thick printed circuit boards with millimeter-thick components (controller logic, NAND flash memory, and ancillaries), it posed a huge technical challange to mechanical HDD designers, who have had to slim down key components that work to maintain inertial motion of spinning platters. This new proposal for 5 mm-thick HDDs could pose a newer, tougher desgin challenge.
Source: VR-Zone
Add your own comment

43 Comments on 7 mm Won't Cut It, Intel Wants 5 mm-Thick Drives for Ultrabooks

#26
OneCool
btarunrI smell conflict of interest. Intel wants drives unreasonably slimmer (5 mm isn't much slimmer than 7 mm), so it becomes impossible for HDD vendors (they can't go slimmer without impacting performance), and SSD remains the only viable storage device (Intel is a major NAND flash chip vendor for SSDs).
^ this
Posted on Reply
#27
eddman
newtekie1Yes, I would.



And do you think it will be harder to get 5mm in the 2.5" form factor? It won't. The fact is we already have 5mm drives in even smaller form factors, so making a 5mm drive in the larger 2.5" form factor should be easy. However, performance will likely suffer.

And with current platter densities, I'd guess 160GB would be easy in a 1" Microdrive today.
I never said that. Just corrected him.

They will most probably get to 5 mm 2.5 inch HDDs but, like you said, performance will suffer. SSDs seem like a better choice going forward.
Posted on Reply
#28
ptzdunba
question about resource and energy effiency

I wonder whether there is any gain in the above when choosing a smaller, thinner drive vs. a regular (for example 3.5'') one. Obviously there is a direct saving of material and shipping effort for smaller, lighter products. But how about the up-front costs of this down-the-road gain? How much more of resources and energy (X%) have to be expended during development and production of a product that saves Y% resources and energy compared the previous version? Anyone can give a founded opinion? Thanks!
Posted on Reply
#29
ensabrenoir
cheesy999I'm sure you can at least see why the average laptop user might not want to carry a USB hard drive around everywhere, what the point of making the ultrabook smaller if you have to carry around more items just to allow you to store files?
:wtf:

External hds are for back up\storage purposes... haven't meet anyone who carries one around like a thumb drive. Honestly surprised by interest in ultra books..... thought the use of the word ultra alone would've been enough to tank it. Customers ultimately want the portability of a tablet with the power of a desktop. Until we get there ... the ultras actually do have a place.
Posted on Reply
#30
Vulpesveritas
ensabrenoir:wtf:

External hds are for back up\storage purposes... haven't meet anyone who carries one around like a thumb drive. Honestly surprised by interest in ultra books..... thought the use of the word ultra alone would've been enough to tank it. Customers ultimately want the portability of a tablet with the power of a desktop. Until we get there ... the ultras actually do have a place.
I think laptops in general will have a place in some form for as long as people prefer physical keyboards, and for gaming and professional typing it is somewhat going to be better.
Even if it is merely tablets with physical keyboards that lock onto it like the Asus transformer.
Posted on Reply
#31
LAN_deRf_HA
This is getting pretty stupid. The thinness race is outpacing battery advancement and die shrinks. Battery life is trending backwards because of this, and for what? So I can slice someone in half with my laptop?
Posted on Reply
#32
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
LAN_deRf_HABattery life is trending backwards because of this, and for what? So I can slice someone in half with my laptop?
GEEK-FATALITY! FLAWLESS VICTORY!:toast:

Considering the higher end models still overheat and have to get a separate laptop cooler- Dell had it right with the Dell Inspiron 9100/XPS Gen1 Chassis Running P4 EE (Gallatin or Prescott) on 965PE Chipset 2 GB PC 3200 DDR and Radeon 9800 256 (R420)
Posted on Reply
#33
Beertintedgoggles
LAN_deRf_HAThis is getting pretty stupid. The thinness race is outpacing battery advancement and die shrinks. Battery life is trending backwards because of this, and for what? So I can slice someone in half with my laptop?
Just remember, nothing else matters as long as you look cool
Posted on Reply
#34
Vulpesveritas
BeertintedgogglesJust remember, nothing else matters as long as you look cool
That's the only point I can see in an Ultrabook. A tablet makes sense, a smartphone makes sense, a laptop makes sense, a desktop makes sense, and a server rack makes sense. A tablet / netbook hybrid also makes sense.

But netbooks on their own make sense from a low cost internet browsing only usage viewpoint.

... But an ultrabook?... really? Two pounds difference for something 30-50% faster with longer battery life, which is more durable, and lasts longer.

So aesthetics is the only thing I can think of as to what would drive the sale of one.
Posted on Reply
#35
WhoDecidedThat
leave 5 mm hard drives. i want flash controllers on the cpu die for minimum latency.
or atleast give us retail 2.5" ocz kilimanjaro ssds!
Posted on Reply
#36
Fourstaff
LAN_deRf_HAThis is getting pretty stupid. The thinness race is outpacing battery advancement and die shrinks. Battery life is trending backwards because of this, and for what? So I can slice someone in half with my laptop?
Haven't seen an ultrabook with less than 4 hours of battery life, compared to a normal laptop's 2-3 hours.

If anyone thinks an ultrabook is useless/too expensive, then its not for them. Simple as that.
Posted on Reply
#38
LAN_deRf_HA
FourstaffHaven't seen an ultrabook with less than 4 hours of battery life, compared to a normal laptop's 2-3 hours.

If anyone thinks an ultrabook is useless/too expensive, then its not for them. Simple as that.
You must have a missed out on the whole culv thing. 4 hours is terrible. We were at 10 hours+
Posted on Reply
#39
Fourstaff
LAN_deRf_HAYou must have a missed out on the whole culv thing. 4 hours is terrible. We were at 10 hours+
ULVs are not cheap, they are either every expensive, or severely underpowered. No, I didn't mention them because they were essentially the same as ultrabooks, with major differences being having an optical drive, a mechanical hdd and a plain name. But for your run off the mill laptop you will be lucky if you can reach 3hrs on a standard battery.
Posted on Reply
#40
xBruce88x
i don't see what's so ultra about ultrabooks anyway, aside from maybe battery life and price being high
Posted on Reply
#41
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
eddmanI never said that. Just corrected him.

They will most probably get to 5 mm 2.5 inch HDDs but, like you said, performance will suffer. SSDs seem like a better choice going forward.
I have to agree, in the ultrabook sector SSDs are the way to go.
xBruce88xi don't see what's so ultra about ultrabooks anyway, aside from maybe battery life and price being high
They are small and light, that is the point of them. If you don't think that is important then they aren't for you. I carry my laptop around with me every day for work, and being as small and as light as possible while still being functional is important to me, so I have an Ultrabook.
Posted on Reply
#42
Disparia
You allowed mechanical drives in your so-called Ultrabook standard in the first place Intel? Dude, weak.
Posted on Reply
#43
Fourstaff
JizzlerYou allowed mechanical drives in your so-called Ultrabook standard in the first place Intel? Dude, weak.
Hybrid drives can easily beat SSDs with a poor controller, so obviously they allowed them.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 23rd, 2024 03:32 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts