Samsung Announces 850 Pro Solid State Drives with 3D Vertical NAND Flash Memory

14

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Spaztrick

"No word yet on price or availability."
Unless you head over to Amazon where it's listed as being released on July 21st.
128GB = $129.99
256GB = $229.99
512GB = $429.99
1TB = $729.99

But as with most things on preorder, the price is probably going to change.

(used these for search terms = B00LF10KTO | B00LF10KTE | B00LF10L02 | B00LF10KNA)

avatar

jraschke11

Yep, waste of time sitting on SATA III still. Definitely need to move to a new interface. I have NO compelling reason to purchase this. There are plenty of other options, and any SSD worth its salt nowadays is hitting the SATA III wall.

avatar

AFDozerman

Yeah, I'd say we need an open thunderbolt-like standard; a small, high speed interface that carries PCI signals over a longer distance. Something that we could use to plug in everything from HDD/SSDs to video cards to cell phones.

avatar

dgrmouse

Wow... AnandTech scooped MaxPC rather badly on this one. They had a full review along with price lists yesterday or earlier.

avatar

vrmlbasic

I thought (and hoped) that we were moving to made-for-PCIe SSDs so we could give the SATA III and AHCI bottlenecks the boot. SATA Express still looks like a bad joke with that massive, clunky connector.

avatar

LatiosXT

I really don't see a need for faster bandwidth, as most transfers are very small, at least if this is used as a system drive with core programs. I'd rather see a push for more IOPS.

To put in perspective, a laptop I had with SATA 3Gbps loaded Windows 7 faster than it could finish the throbber. Versus my desktop which was on a 6Gbps interface.

avatar

vrmlbasic

Getting rid of AHCI works towards that but so long as we're on SATA we're forced to use the archaic AHCI that is designed for slow mechanical drives (redundant, I know).

Are you even using SSDs?

avatar

LatiosXT

Yes.

However it doesn't even matter. I did a test to see the load times on games across two hard drives (5400 and 7200 RPM), an SSD, and a RAM disk. I found out there's a hard limit before going faster doesn't get you much performance. The SSD outpeformed the faster HDD in total load time by about 1.57. However, the RAM disk, despite it's staggering 67 times faster transfer rate over the HDD (13 over the SSD), only offered 1.69 times the performance over the hard drive (or about 1.08 times more performance over the SSD).

In the end, load performance isn't the issue, it's processing and initialization that's the issue. Which is why Microsoft implemented Fast Boot. I suppose we could start asking games to start dumping save files in the gigabyte size so that in-game states (both CPU and GPU) are saved and loading that is all it takes to get back where you were.

I mean, unless you have some need to have a transfer rate over 550MB/s and it's critical, then there's no point in pursuing this further.

avatar

BlazePC

Agreed. Anything in the neighborhood of 500MB/s is blazing fast enough for most everyone. I'm finding that Raid 0 coupled with a fast (and inexpensive) M.2 cache is the trick. VRaptor HDD's of-course.

avatar

zaphodbeeblebrox 42

so how long until we put heatsink on our SSDs?

avatar

praetor_alpha

Maybe when we start heating our NAND to 800c to write to it more. like this: http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/11/nand-flash-gets-baked-lives-longer

avatar

LatiosXT

It's only for a moment, so no heat sink needed!

avatar

Peanut Fox

Seems like something they would start doing at the factory if it really works.

avatar

LatiosXT

Nuh, this is for when the cells are declared "useless" after being written to so many times.