Back to Article

  • Fujikoma - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link

    "The pricing, on the other hand, is actually not too bad."
    Are you serious. I just paid $345 for a 512 Gig crucial SSD this weekend. There's a few hundred dollars wrapped up in premium that doesn't belong there.
    I still feel like I'm getting soaked on it, but it's an acceptable drubbing.
  • imaheadcase - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link

    It is cheap, considering that simular size ranges less than a year ago could easily be close to $5k range.

    Also, just because SSD prices are cheap, does not mean every size is going to be cheap. Consider that my 246 Crucial M4 i bought is less than 6 months old..i paid almost $500. So $345 you paid is SUPER cheap for 512.
  • mlcloud - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link

    6 months ago, that wouldn't have been a terribly unusual price. However, many SSDs now have broken the $0.75/GB barrier, and even the M4 is usually found at a dollar pr GB. Samsung's 830 has fallen slightly below a dollar per gig at the right times and stores.

    Not saying Fujikoma is justified in his comments, just explaining why he feels that way. I think this SSD is a niche product for those who might need high capacities with high random reads and writes but not so much straight up bandwidth (hence sata 3 gb/s), and it is priced appropriately as a niche product.
  • Malphas - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link

    "It is cheap, considering that simular size ranges less than a year ago could easily be close to $5k range."

    Yeah, but consumer electronics don't work that way otherwise you could sell a netbook for a few thousand dollars and say it was cheap compared to an IBM mainframe from the 70's with a similar level of processing power. The fact is flash prices have dropped massively in the last 12 months. Things are cheap/expensive based on today's prices, not based on what you paid 12 or even 6 months ago.
  • Klinky1984 - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link

    How do you figure out something is cheaper without historical price points to compare to?

    Cheap flash prices have no translated to lower costs across the board for all sizes, especially the larger sizes. Only recently has 512GB started showing signs of big price drops. Try to find a 960GB that it significantly cheaper than this one. Also the price is probably MSRP, not street pricing.
  • Malphas - Tuesday, June 26, 2012 - link

    "How do you figure out something is cheaper without historical price points to compare to?"

    By comparing it to current products obviously. Like I said judging the value of consumer electronics by comparing it to historic price points doesn't work for obvious reasons.
  • ShieTar - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    You are just discussing semantics though, most solutions at similar sizes are still close to the 5k$ range. You can find anything between 2$/GB and 7$/GB for TB-sized SSDs, but nothing anywhere near the 1.3$/GB for the above product. Reply
  • Pessimism - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link

    Unacceptable and a total deal breaker in a mid-2012 performance product. Why even bother?! Reply
  • danjw - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link

    It isn't necessarily a RAID 0. With the SATA interface gating the speed, RAID 0 doesn't really have a benefit. While JBOD would reduce the data lost if one controller were to fail. Reply
  • ShieTar - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    RAID 0 can still handle twice as many random reads / writes, even with the older SATA interface. Though if that is the reason for the RAID setupt, it is somewhat surprising that they would not publish IOPS results for it. Reply
  • GotThumbs - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link

    So why would I be better off buying this instead of just buying TWO 512gb SSD drives and RAIDing them?

    While I can see the advantage for those groups working with such large files at one time (CAD, Graphic Design, etc), I fail to see the benefit this product provides that can't be obtained elsewhere?
  • boeush - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link

    One word: laptops.

    They frequently don't have the internal space for more than 1 mass storage unit, so you won't have the RAID option unless you want to 'upgrade' to something twice the girth and twice the weight...
  • ShieTar - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    Or small business database servers maybe? The point then is not to maximize the storage of one disc, but the storage per SATA connection, which comes to the same result. Reply
  • danjw - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link

    The only reasons I can think of is to save a drive bay and/or SATA port. Two 512 SSDs with the same SATA 3Gbps interface would be faster, in a RAID0, not really for a JBOD, though. Reply
  • blanarahul - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link

    Ah, 2 480 GB Agility 3s in raid 0. 1 TB of super speed storage at 700$! Reply
  • Qapa - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link

    Ok, I really don't know, so... why do we need to 128Gb chips to make a bigger SSD, wouldn't it be possible simply to put more chips together to make a bigger SSD?

    Suggestion: I saw this MyDigitalSSD SandForce mSata SMART SSDs... maybe it is a nice SSD and you guys to check it out more... SF mSATA opens new possibilities.

    And btw, anyway to know if a laptop has a mSATA port available? I found a couple of forums discussing it and it seemed not to be too available yet.. do you guys know if this is coming out in full strength in most laptops now?

    Thanks for any help!
  • Kristian Vättö - Monday, June 25, 2012 - link

    With the technology used today, eight NAND dies can be packed into a single NAND package. Since 64Gb is the biggest die at the moment, it means 512Gb (64GB) can be packed into a single NAND package.

    Most 2.5" SSDs have either eight or sixteen NAND packages. If there are eight packages, then the maximum is obviously 512GB (8 x 64GB). I actually don't know why you can't use sixteen 64GB packages as that would yield a capacity of 1024GB, but it's possible that controllers can only talk to a set amount of NAND dies (64 in this case). Either way, there is some limitation because e.g. SandForce spec sheet specifically lists 512GB as the maximum capacity and it also mentions that 8GB die is needed with some configurations.

    When we get a 20nm 128Gb die, the capacity of one NAND package increases to 128GB and eight of them will give you 1024GB.

    I've only seen Ultrabooks with mSATA SSDs (or other blade SSDs). The problem is that most laptops don't ship with SSD as a standard. Even if some model does, it's likely that the same chassis/design is used in some other configuration without an SSD. Hence it would be waste of space to have an mSATA slot, especially because you can use 2.5" SSDs instead.
  • Qapa - Tuesday, June 26, 2012 - link

    Thanks Kristian for taking the time to explain that.

    As for mSATA, I still believe it would make sense for laptops to ship with HDD (which is stable tech, you care about size and rpm, not so much brands...) and an mSATA so you could upgrade it to have an SSD (which is not so stable, each person prefer different SSDs for different reasons...). This would allow having the SSD+HDD which is what most people still want for price and overall space reasons...
  • drumm_22 - Tuesday, June 26, 2012 - link

    Does this ssd support trim? or are you waiting for the full review to answer that? Reply
  • ShieTar - Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - link

    "The only other 1TB SSD is OCZ's Octane, but unfortunately we don't know what OCZ has done to achieve such capacity (and I couldn't even find a single review of the 1TB model)."

    Almost true, there is also the OCZ Talos 2. But it is connected via SAS instead of SATA, as is the 800GB Seagate Pulsar. And both cost in excess of 2000$, so the OWC drive is really surprisingly good deal for the small niche of users that do need a >512GB SSD. And can't be bothered to use USB3 or Thunderbolt. Who are those people again?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now