probably a holdover from the sata days, or simply because it’s nice to show the number doubling into tens of thousands
shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 5 weeks ago
I wonder why they’re not using TB/s like 14.9TB/s
real_squids@sopuli.xyz 5 weeks ago
kamen@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Assuming you meant GB/s, not TB/s, I think it’s for the sake of convenience when doing comparisons - there are still SATA SSDs around and in terms of sequential reads and writes those top out at what the interface allows, i.e. 500-550 MB/s.
shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 5 weeks ago
Yeah, i meant GB/s. Thanks for pointing that out.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
That’s basically how all storage speeds are handled. HDDs are around 300MB/s, current NVMEs are around 7000MB/s, etc. Keep everything in the same scale for easier comparison.
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
So computer illiterate don’t think it’s a smaller number
pogodem0n@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Because those are megabytes, not gigabytes
shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 5 weeks ago
Oh good point. 14.9GB/s