POST A COMMENT

17 Comments

Back to Article

  • imaheadcase - Monday, August 18, 2014 - link

    What is the deal with these coming to consumers? Just price?

    Since no price is listed, I assume its out of reach for most people..

    I had no idea these had such high capacity.
    Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Monday, August 18, 2014 - link

    It's an enterprise SSD. There is no price because it will ship through server OEMs (e.g. Dell and IBM), so ultimately pricing is up to the OEMs. Reply
  • person5e9@gmail.com - Monday, August 18, 2014 - link

    I think Dell and IBM are VARs in this case. The OEM is HGST. And Anandtech could post the price to VARs, just like they post the volume pricing of CPUs. Reply
  • hlmcompany - Monday, August 18, 2014 - link

    If the likes of Dell, IBM, etc. integrate this product into their servers, then they are the OEM. They would also carry the warranty, not HGST. Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Monday, August 18, 2014 - link

    I guess it's a matter of how you want to put it. Technically Dell and IBM could be seen as VARs but generally I see the term OEM used quite a lot, probably more than it should (of course, in this case, Dell and IBM are server OEMs, not SSD OEMs).

    HGST hasn't published any price (even for VARs/OEMs), which is fairly normal in the SSD market. Usually there are only a handful of OEM customers, whereas Intel CPUs are used by a countless number of OEMs and SIs.
    Reply
  • mmrezaie - Monday, August 18, 2014 - link

    still I think it should be cheaper than intel's solution. latency is higher and scalability is worst. Reply
  • djepson - Saturday, August 23, 2014 - link

    Not true Reply
  • imaheadcase - Monday, August 18, 2014 - link

    I understand that, but people get hands on OEM stuff all the time and use it. Still does not answer if a market is for consumers any time soon. Reply
  • djepson - Saturday, August 23, 2014 - link

    We priced the cards lower than the FlashmaxII and we do offer them to end users as well as OEMs and SI's. dan.jepson@hgst.com. Cheers Reply
  • OreoCookie - Monday, August 18, 2014 - link

    I'd assume they won't be cheap. Reply
  • djepson - Saturday, August 23, 2014 - link

    Less expensive than a SAN Reply
  • mgl888 - Monday, August 18, 2014 - link

    2.7GB/s seems slow for a 32 channel design. Using 8GB dies, they'd have to have ~4 dies per channel, which should be enough to saturate an 100MHz ONFI DDR channel. Let's assume 200MB/s per channel - that's 6.4GB/s. They're able to achieve less than half of that? Reply
  • extide - Monday, August 18, 2014 - link

    You're getting bits and bytes messed up. 200MB/sec is only 0.2GB/sec :) Reply
  • mgl888 - Monday, August 18, 2014 - link

    Um.. no I'm not. 200MB/s = 0.2GB/s, and x32 channels - that's 6.4GB/s. Reply
  • FaaR - Monday, August 18, 2014 - link

    There's obviously some internal inefficiencies that preclude this product working near theoretical max... Most people will probably be quite happy with almost 3GB/s disk I/O... :)

    What surprises me is the rather high power dissipation, 25W is some serious wattage; especially for that tiny little passive heatsink. Surely forced aircooling will be a requirement to stop this thing literally frying itself into expensive silicon scrap.
    Reply
  • FunBunny2 - Monday, August 18, 2014 - link

    Anyone remember an SSD with such pitiful RW IOPS relative to RR IOPS???? Reply
  • extide - Monday, August 18, 2014 - link

    Interesting that they are shipping an FPGA based design. I wonder if it is Xylinx or Alterra. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now