backtop


Print 14 comment(s) - last by AnnihilatorX.. on Aug 15 at 11:50 AM

SSD comes in 128GB to 512GB capacity

Samsung today announced a new SATA 3.0 SSD aimed at notebook users called the PM830 SSD. Sampling of the 512GB version of the SSD started in May and Samsung expects the new SSD to replace the its 3Gb/s interface SSDs by the end of the year.

“Samsung’s new line up of advanced SSDs will raise the performance bar to the next level for ultra-slim notebooks and tablets and accelerate growth of the market for high-performance SSDs,” said Wanhoon Hong, executive vice president, memory sales & marketing, Device Solutions, Samsung Electronics. “The industry is expected to quickly embrace SATA 6Gb/s-based SSDs, which also will help increase market interest in 256GB and higher densities significantly.” 

The SSDs use 20nm class 32GB MLC NAND memory chips that feature a toggle DDR interface and Samsung’s own proprietary NAND controller. As a result, Samsung promises 500MB/s sequential read and up to 350MB/s sequential write speeds. 

The SSD features AES 256-bit encryption to protect data, and will also be offered in 128GB and 256GB capacities. 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

512MB?
By Shining Arcanine on 8/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: 512MB?
By inighthawki on 8/12/2011 2:28:11 PM , Rating: 2
Did you bother reading past the title of the article? There's like 5 instances where it correctly says GB, including the subtitle which states the low-end as being 128GB.


RE: 512MB?
By Skelum on 8/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: 512MB?
By aebiv on 8/12/2011 2:46:57 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the title was referring to the speed of the unit.

Contextual reading FTW.


RE: 512MB?
By kleinma on 8/12/2011 2:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
"Samsung promises 500MB/s sequential read and up to 350MB/s sequential write speeds"

Forget contextual reading, how about article reading???

I agree the title is a typo. I bet it is changed to GB soon enough..


RE: 512MB?
By GuinnessKMF on 8/12/2011 4:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
What's with correction comments getting downrated so hard? If they're not going to bother proofreading their own articles it's hardly surprising to see the readers step up.

Especially since the corrections that do occur are often snuck in without any acknowledgement to the commentator in the comments, it makes it look like the downrating is being caused by the author. Mistakes happen, owning up to them makes them alright.

I do agree that they're "Not worth reading" once they've been corrected, but clearly they were worth reading to the author.


RE: 512MB?
By Lord 666 on 8/12/2011 4:32:59 PM , Rating: 3
Its not like Shane has never heard the same constructive critism before. Habitual grammar goofs galore. Typos everywhere. Words thrown up against the wall to see what sticks. Blatant plagerism.

Wonder if Shane does this stuff on purpose just for the lulz. No one can be this consistently poor, right?


RE: 512MB?
By GuinnessKMF on 8/12/2011 8:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
DailyTech is based on "plagiarism" but they do link to the articles, it's just usually copied word for word (I see it from pretty much all of the contributors). I think of DT as more of an aggregator, which is good, but spelling/grammar seems to be a large issue for them, often stuff that you'd catch if you just re-read your own article (or bounced it off a colleague)

(I found it funny that you mis-spelled plagiarism, but then again, you're not trying to act like a journalist).


RE: 512MB?
By aebiv on 8/12/2011 4:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
Not saying it was right, but just that the 512MB was more likely in relation to speed according to the context of the title, rather than the capacity of the drive.


Important Info Omitted: Cost
By Cypherdude1 on 8/12/2011 4:46:55 PM , Rating: 3
They omitted the most important tidbit: how much. How much is the 512 GB going to cost? I just put together a system which has a 1 TB Seagate 7200 RPM HDD. It only cost $70 and that was high!




RE: Important Info Omitted: Cost
By inighthawki on 8/12/2011 5:26:09 PM , Rating: 4
Another important factor they always seem to leave out is iops/random read/write speed. I mean, sequential reads/writes being fast are good and all, but random access is usually more important for load times, if you ask me.


RE: Important Info Omitted: Cost
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2011 8:55:15 AM , Rating: 1
All SSD's have insane random times though, so it's hard for brands to make that their selling point. I'm not aware of any particular SSD with significant random/read times over another. Also ALL SSD's have iops/random's that even the best hard drive could only dream of.

Sequential speeds are nice fat sexy numbers that can be easily marketed, so that's why they are highlighted.

But you are right, for an OS drive I'll take random over sequential any day. My "old" Gen2 Intel still feels great.

To address the OP, this drive represents a step up in performance. If you have to ask cost, you probably aren't who they are looking for to buy these things. If you have to ask how much a Ferrari costs, you probably can't afford one anyway.


By inighthawki on 8/13/2011 10:54:28 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
All SSD's have insane random times though

Well that's not completely true. I will agree that pretty much the lowest end SSD still outperforms a standard HDD in terms of random read/write performance, but simply browsing newegg you can easily see a variety of different drives ranging anywhere from 10k to 85+k iops, which is quite a large difference in random speeds. Even some of the newer "higher performance" drives only show 30k-50k.


By AnnihilatorX on 8/15/2011 11:50:59 AM , Rating: 3
Badly designed controllers have write latency as high as 200ms when the buffer is filled and block is dirty.

I give the following quote from SR:
quote:
The 25nm Intel SSD 320 came in right under the SSD 510 with an average response time of 0.101ms. This was much slower (relatively speaking) than the 160GB X25-M which measured 0.059ms. Max latency on the newer SSD 320 was the best of the entire bunch, coming in with a peak response time of 26.8ms , whereas the X25-M before it spiked upwards of 284ms .


It's these figures which gives noticeable hiccups when using SSD.

http://www.storagereview.com/intel_ssd_320_review_...


"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki