POST A COMMENT

25 Comments

Back to Article

  • mevans336 - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    I'd plunk down $600 for a 1TB SSD. I split my work across 2 Samsung SSD drives and a 2TB mechanical drive (for bulk storage) now and it's rather cumbersome. I'd love to consolidate everything onto a single SSD. Looking forward to a review and in-depth opinion on reliability from you guys. Reply
  • nathanddrews - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    Ditto.

    I already commented on the Mushkin drive before reading this article. Under $600! Sweet! I've been promising myself that $500 would be my cutoff, but this is just too tempting...

    Is it like the Mushkin RAID-0 512 solution, or is this the real deal 128Gb NAND? I don't really care either way if I can get a 1TB SSD for under $600...
    Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    I'm 99% sure that it's the real deal. Micron makes its own NAND (IMFT) so they are the first one to get access to new products such as 128Gb/die NAND. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    Correct: single controller 960GB. They're doing 128Gb die with 8 per package and 8 packages on the SSD. Reply
  • nathanddrews - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    Bad. Ass. Thanks, guys. Keep up the great work! Reply
  • jwcalla - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    I just realized something... gigabit vs gibibit. Reply
  • Soulkeeper - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    Marvell controller using provisioning ?
    isn't this a first ?
    Reply
  • josephjpeters - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    Probably has something to do with using 20nm MLC and lower P/E cycles. Even with OP you're still only get a 3 year warranty. Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    Unless Micron's validation is significantly different from Intel's, their 20nm MLC should still be 3,000 P/E cycles (like Intel's).

    More OP is helpful in general as it helps with performance consistency as we have shown before.
    Reply
  • Wolfpup - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    I like the M4, except that it lacks hardware encryption (while Intel's 320, 520, and I assume 330/335 have hardware encryption).

    Does the M500 add hardware encryption? (I assume adding a drive password is what locks an encrypted drive...like your password decrypts the drive's key which decrypts the drive, all running on the drive itself unbenounced to the PC it's in).

    Other than that, if these work, they look awesome. I love that they've left more spare area, and 960GB in a high quality SSD for <$600?!? That's almost mind boggling!
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    Yes, they support 256-bit AES in hardware. Also have a bunch of small capacitors so in the event of power it can finish writing anything to NAND. Not a super capacitor, but they have enough to handle the internal buffers. Reply
  • Wolfpup - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    Thanks! That's awesome!

    Now I guess I hold off on my next notebook purchase until the m500 is actually shipping LOL. Hope it's not too long.
    Reply
  • phy_lbc - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    In the table, for the 960GB capacity it doesn't include mSATA as a form factor. Do you know what the reason is for this, and does anyone have any links for further information about it?

    It was mentioned in the comments of this link (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6575/hands-on-with-p... that mSATA only supports up to four NAND packages (where can I find more proof?). Is that an inherent limitation of mSATA, or just current controllers?
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    Mostly it's a matter of size...getting more than four chips into mSATA would make you too big. So 4 chips, 8 die per chip, and you're limited to 512GiB with 128Gb die. Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    There is simply no physical space for more than four NAND packages, otherwise you'll end up with an SSD that does not fit in the mSATA spec. See for example this:

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/5735/micron-c400-msa...

    The PCB is already quite full of chips. You might be able to fit six packages but that would be a real stretch.

    With four packages, the maximum capacity with 128Gb die is 512GB (4x8x16GB).
    Reply
  • phy_lbc - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    What about when you get a process shrink? Doesn't the physical size reduce, therefore you might have a better chance to fit 6-8 packages on that PCB. Also if you don't have a big DRAM block, shouldn't you save some space (I can't remember if SandForce doesn't use DDR). Couldn't you use a physically smaller controller and some smart placement of NAND packages to reach higher storage space? Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    The die size for 20nm NAND stayed roughly the same as the previous generation, but Micron went from 64Gb die to 128Gb die. That's why they can now do 1TB class while still using only eight packages. Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    Actually, IMFT has a 64Gb 20nm die as well (used in Intel SSD 335 for instance). Compared to 25nm 64Gb die, the 20nm die is around 30% smaller. I'm not sure about the size of 20nm 128Gb die but it's probably a little less than twice the size of 64Gb die (some space savings from bigger page/block size since there are less peripheral circuits between the blocks), which would make it slightly larger than the 25nm 64Gb die.

    However, the actual die size is misleading because package sizes are more or less a standard. We are usually dealing with some kind of TSOP or BGA packages and their sizes don't change. This also allows easy PCB designing because you don't have to redesign the PCB if you're moving to smaller lithography NAND.

    I guess the main reason why we haven't seen bigger mSATA SSDs is the lack of interest for them. I'm sure you could fit more NAND in mSATA form factor by investing enough on the R&D but honestly that's quite pointless due to the small market.
    Reply
  • jjj - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    Are those numbers right for sub 512GB writes? It would pretty much make the drives irrelevant in consumer. Reply
  • Death666Angel - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    I guess you are only looking at sequential writes. They look like Samsung 840 non-pro numbers to me, which seems to be selling quite well. And the random IOPS are what really matters for most usages. And they certainly deliver. Reply
  • Kougar - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    Write speeds are not "up". The 240GB M5 write speed is DOWN from 260MB/s to 250MB/s, as well as the 128GB from 175MB/s on the m4 to 130MB/s on the m5.

    Also, 4k IOPS writes have not "doubled", they only increased from 50K to 60K.

    I'm eyeballing the specs from the m4 datasheet... better be more careful when making general statements that only apply to >500GB models.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    I would take the earlier M4 numbers with a bit more skepticism as they generally felt more inflated, particularly on lower capacity drives. Mostly though, I was speaking about maximum performance/IOPS on the 480/960GB drives. 80K/80K is indeed "almost double" 40K/50K, and read/write speeds are up as well. On smaller drives where there are less NAND die to talk to (thanks to the increased die sizes), performance may not always go up, but in general I expect the 120GB M500 to match or exceed M4 128GB performance in all benchmarks. Reply
  • smalM - Friday, January 18, 2013 - link

    You're looking at it the wrong way.

    The smallest M4 has 95MB/s write speed, the smallest M500 has 130MB/s.
    The 2nd smallest M4 has 175MB/s write speed, the 2nd smallest M500 has 250MB/s.
    The 2 biggest M4 have 260MB/s write speed, the 2 biggest M500 have 400 MB/s.

    So all M500 models have gotten a nice speed bump over their predecessors.
    Reply
  • iwod - Friday, January 11, 2013 - link

    It was supposed to be the lowest power consuming SSD. Where did that piece of info gone? Reply
  • Scour - Saturday, February 16, 2013 - link

    Still waiting for the M500-series.

    After the V4 Crucial need to find it´s old strength.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now