backtop


Print 24 comment(s) - last by PandaBear.. on Jan 8 at 6:26 PM

Samsung doubles its SSD capacity

Two months ago, Samsung announced its new SATA II-based 64GB solid-state disk (SSD). The 64GB SSD promised read speeds of 120MB/sec and write speeds of 100MB/sec.

Today, Samsung is doubling the capacity of its latest SATA II SSD offering to 128GB. Instead of relying on single-level cell (SLC) NAND flash memory, the new 128GB offering makes use of multi-level cell (MLC) NAND flash.

Unfortunately, performance dropped with the new 128 SSD -- read speeds are down to 100MB/sec while write speeds hover at 70MB/sec.

“Our SSD can be used by the widest range of corporate notebooks, particularly where additional storage is needed beyond what is typical in most business applications,” said Jim Elliott, director of flash memory marketing for Samsung Semiconductor.

Samsung's new 128GB SSD pales in comparison to BiTMICRO's massive 832GB SSD which was recently announced. Samsung, however, has the advantage when it comes to availability and pricing. Samsung's 128GB SSD will be available in the first half of 2008 with pricing of at least a couple thousand dollars.

BiTMICRO's 832GB SSD, on the other hand, won't be mass produced until the latter half of 2008 and will likes cost tens of thousands of dollars.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Performance not capacity
By Gnoad on 1/6/2008 6:49:26 PM , Rating: 2
I generally agree, but 32GB is way too low. Something like 80GB should be the bare minimum nowadays.


RE: Performance not capacity
By Mithan on 1/6/2008 7:08:04 PM , Rating: 5
I agree, I have a 72 gig Raptor and I would easily buy one of these if it was in that size, with better performance and roughly equal price.

Anyways, within 5 years these drives will no doubt be the norm, at affordable prices, awesome performance and huge capacities.

Then the world will end on Dec 21, 2012 and it wont matter ;)


RE: Performance not capacity
By T4RTER S4UCE on 1/6/2008 9:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree. If you want an on-the-go computer 32GB is more than enough, I still get by with an old 40GB Laptop, and that holds ALL my videos, pictures, music and programs.


RE: Performance not capacity
By mindless1 on 1/7/2008 6:08:00 AM , Rating: 2
32GB will be sufficient if you think in terms of having 32GB available instead of in terms of accepting the increasing bloat of newer applications within the context of having a larger mechanical HDD to store it all.

Most people dont need every file they've ever come across on their laptop, there are other options for supplimental storage whether it be WAN/internet HTTP or FTP, external, flash card, DVD, network share or fileserver, etc. Suppose you simply MUST watch some movie on your laptop. Doesn't it have a DVD player? Doesn't it have networking which is sufficient for the bitrate of watching a movie? If not, 32GB SSD can still hold a 4GB ISO or Divx it, if only you choose to keep some free space when deciding what goes on the laptop.

Snapping our fingers, sure an infinitely sized SSD would be nice, but not really needed. People did manage to get by and do quite a bit before HDDs even reached 32GB.


RE: Performance not capacity
By ethana2 on 1/7/2008 7:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
Performance++.
As an Ubuntu user, I say 4, 8, or 16 GB is fine. At those rates, you can't afford the bloat of an OS designed by 'motivationally challenged individuals'.


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch

Related Articles
BiTMICRO Pumps SSD Capacities to 832GB
January 4, 2008, 1:55 PM
Samsung Launches Speedy SATA II SSDs
November 5, 2007, 11:29 AM













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