backtop


Print 54 comment(s) - last by Joz.. on Mar 15 at 12:34 AM


Samsung 2.5" SATA II Solid State Drive sample  (Source: Samsung)
Samsung refreshes 64GB SSD with faster SATA II interface

Solid-state drives (SSDs) are the new hype in high-speed storage solutions and with each new launch comes improvements over the last. Currently, storage space is what many manufacturers are focusing on due to the demand by consumers.

There are still a few details that certain manufacturers are bringing up to speed. Many of the key players in the SSD game are still implementing a PATA interface on their solid-state products which is holding these devices back from performing at the highest levels. This is the reason for Samsung Electronics' most recent launch announcement.

Samsung announced in a press release that its 1.8-inch and 2.5-inch 64GB SSD with a SATA II interface is now in the mass production stage. The new SATA II version of the drive was announced in Q4 2007 and is said to remove the bottlenecks of the PATA interface used in the previous version of the drive.

According to the director of Samsung Semiconductor's flash marketing department, “While there will always be a market for HDDs, we see growing demand for our new SSDs, especially now that they are available with the SATA II interface.”

Due to the inclusion of the SATA II interface on the new refresh, transfer rates on the new 64GB SATA II SSD will increase 60 percent from SATA I versions of the same drive. Instead of the 65 MB/sec read and 45 MB/sec write speeds of the previous PATA SSD drive, the SATA II flavor will produce a maximum write speed of 120 MB/sec read and 100 MB/sec write speeds.

Additionally, because the drive is based on solid-state memory technology, the 64GB SATA II SSD will be able to withstand 1500Gs of shock within a 1/2 ms span, roughly 3 times the amount of shock a traditional hard disk drive would be able to withstand in 2 ms.

Pricing information on the 1.8-inch 64GB SSD is not officially available since these drives are currently an OEM-only option, however, it seems that PC makers such as Dell and Alienware are providing solid-state drives as a $1,000+ option in certain high-end notebook systems.

Recently, Samsung also announced a 128GB SSD using multi-level cell NAND flash which is scheduled for a mid-2008 launch with costs speculated to be around the $2,000 mark. With prices this high, only the super-enthusiasts will opt for these products.

That said, drives such as BitMICROs 832GB SSD that is scheduled for a H2 2008 launch will be completely out of reach for anyone but the mildly wealthy under current price schedules.



Comments     Threshold


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

..dang them big spaces.
By Joz on 2/15/2008 1:12:53 PM , Rating: 4
I would rather see some smaller 8-16GB drives under $80 that I can just use for booting my OS(s) and games. (though, I could care less about booting the games, and more about quicker OS boots. 23 seconds for XP is still too damn long for me.




RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By Polynikes on 2/15/2008 1:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't mind faster loading in games at all.


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By Alpha4 on 2/15/2008 5:22:47 PM , Rating: 3
Its always nice to spawn before everyone else in Battlefield 2 and whore the Aircraft ;)


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By headbox on 2/16/2008 2:06:10 AM , Rating: 5
I can see how having a SSD would be an advantage for online games, but to complain about XP boot times is pretty lame- how many times are you shutting off your computer in a day?


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By mindless1 on 2/17/2008 11:19:48 PM , Rating: 2
Notebooks? Depends on the day.


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By Joz on 2/23/2008 1:00:52 AM , Rating: 2
Well, im jumping around from lectures and discussions all day long from ~9-10 to 2-4.

so the faster I can boot, the more battery I have, and the more time I have jackrabbit the assignment due in an hour.

1 SECcond boot is too damn slow!!!


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By AlvinCool on 2/15/2008 1:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I'm with you. I would buy a drive in that range. I have been putting my operating system on smaller fast HD's for years and then loading my programs to a second drive. It makes my system run smoother.


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By FingerMeElmo87 on 2/15/2008 1:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
really? 23 seconds is still to slow? thats absurd


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By IvanAndreevich on 2/15/2008 1:48:00 PM , Rating: 2
Heck, mine is less than 15 seconds for an nlited XP boot with no garbage in the autolaunch.


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By FingerMeElmo87 on 2/15/2008 2:23:38 PM , Rating: 4
Mines is a minute+ and i love it


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By StevoLincolnite on 2/15/2008 3:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
Thats why I love Standby so much, and because it's a laptop it can remain on Battery Power whilst in stand-by mode for a long time without having to worry about the battery, Plus I don't have to worry about boot times, it doesn't take long at all to come out of stand-by, plus with the fact it takes a Minuit or so to boot from a cold boot, on battery power this takes a large toll.


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By ADDAvenger on 2/15/2008 6:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
You mean Hibernate right? Standby still pulls some juice, though it's not much at all. Hibernate is similar, except it powers everything off and saves your ram to disk, so it "boots" back up in under ten seconds. Standby resumes more quickly, but like I said it still pulls some power in that mode.


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By StevoLincolnite on 2/16/2008 12:51:29 PM , Rating: 2
No I mean stand-by I am aware of it using juice, but on a laptop it's negligible, ePower Management reports that I can stay powered up in stand-by for over 40 days.


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By leexgx on 2/15/2008 1:49:27 PM , Rating: 1
yes it is to slow why i use 2 disks in raid 0 (with vista it be 4 even thought due an Bug in Nvida raid you only see 100-120MBs top speeds but randome access should be better)

also with vista around now with its lets kill hard disk performace SSD has basicly no impact on performace when randome reads are hapening


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By leexgx on 2/15/2008 2:14:00 PM , Rating: 2
was thinking more of program loading times (or games level load times or when Superfetch on vista is doing mad randome reads when other programs are trying to access the hdd as well)


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By murphyslabrat on 2/18/2008 1:23:33 PM , Rating: 2
RAID 0 doesn't help random access, but slows it down. While the increased throughput helps cover the performance hit, it is still there.
http://www.overclockers.com/articles1063/index02.a...
there's a link, if you don't believe me.


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By SlipDizzy on 2/15/2008 1:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
The load time for my games and OS is great with my Raptor drive. Although, like yourself, I would love to have a faster load time for XP. My games load up in seconds, so I could care less if they were any faster.

I can't agree with 23 seconds being too slow. God forbid you ever have to go to the DMV.


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By ImSpartacus on 2/15/2008 3:15:53 PM , Rating: 2
I know, the DMV is so unefficent. I have had to wait over an hour in line. A regular day too.

So yeah, I guess 23 seconds of boot into xp isn't too bad. I think I have like a 40 second boot on my old Dell.


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By smilingcrow on 2/15/2008 3:30:55 PM , Rating: 1
I don’t see why people care so much about the boot time for XP or Vista; have you ever heard of standby?


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By mallums on 2/18/2008 6:58:42 AM , Rating: 2
Too buggy on desktops. And laptops, for that matter. Sometimes, a computer never comes out of standby. Besides, one should reboot a Microsoft OS on a regular basis. Every couple of hours, in my experience.


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By Joz on 2/23/2008 12:58:21 AM , Rating: 2
Standby is bugy.

I like fast boot times, it means I can get to my work faster, check email faster, and check the weather before I leave.

If my boot time was 1 second, I would still complain it was to slow.

When I press the power button, I wana see the desktop instantly. No load screen, post screen (only if a problem...) and deff nothing else then my pretty black background and the menu bar.


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By Quiescent on 2/15/2008 5:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
My desktop setup is: 1.8Ghz AMD 64bit processor, 1GB of RAM, 80GB SATA harddrive (hosting the OS), 80GB IDE harddrive, about 10GB of space left on the SATA drive, 256MB 7800GT, Audigy 2 ZS, with regular ol' XP 64bit. I've had the install since about this time two years ago. It takes 10 mins to entirely start up from the minute it starts up and until everything loads on the desktop with a whopping 40 processes running.

My Eee is a 4G Surf with 1GB of RAM, overclocked to 1Ghz when needed (Definitely not on startup, though), 64mb crappy intel onboard videocard, 4GB SSD with only 50mb of space left, nLited XP Pro with SP3 streamlined. It takes only 15-30 secs to start up. What really changes this factor is if you use the network startup screen (boring screen, not so much bright blue that kills your eyesight at night) or not. If you use that instead, the startup time decreases.


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By Quiescent on 2/15/2008 5:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
I must add to this. And the only reason that my Eee is loading quicker is because of the exclusion of Seek time, no need to defrag, and even with the 25mb/s speed for the small capacity, that shouldn't matter. SATA is pretty fast. But Windows doesn't like it that I only have 10GB of space left on my SATA drive. And thus when defragging, I still have a lot of fragmentation. And because of that, it is starting up slower.

With SSDs, you eliminate seek time and defragging all together, creating the sense that you are actually loading things faster all across the board, no matter how "fragmented" your SSD is.


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By Clauzii on 2/15/2008 10:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
TEN minutes??? That's almost impossible :o


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By Quiescent on 2/16/2008 9:31:24 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, like 5 mins to startup to the login screen, and another 3-5 to load everything when I log on.


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By JonnyDough on 2/16/2008 12:04:41 PM , Rating: 1
You're running your Eee with an nLited XP Pro, and your 64bit XP runs what is basically a 32bit emulator. 40 processes means you've got extra programs running, not to mention your hard drive sounds like it's getting full. Furthermore, your Eee doesn't have to load as many hardware drivers. There are several reasons that your desktop is taking a long time to load, including you may have viruses or a defragmented registry, nothing a fresh install might not fix. Still, I've my doubts that it is really requiring 10 minutes. I would believe it takes 3 minutes though - which is still way too long IMO.


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By GaryJohnson on 2/16/2008 12:20:43 PM , Rating: 3
Sounds like he may be running Norton Anti-Go-Fast.


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By Joz on 3/15/2008 12:34:52 AM , Rating: 2
holy crap.. 10 minutes?

I aint seen that bad since i saw a bloated up Celeron D (2.4 or 2.6) machine with like ... no ram try to start up.

10 minutes... 40 proceses? ever heared of turning some of them off?


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By FITCamaro on 2/15/2008 4:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know whats wrong with your PC but from the Windows screen loading screen to desktop on my PC (not counting the few seconds to type my password) its about 15 seconds under MCE2005. Thats on my server.

On my desktop its a tad longer because there's a lot of background services to start from stuff like Visual Studio and bunch of other stuff.


RE: ..dang them big spaces.
By Griswold on 2/16/2008 2:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
I think you and your PC got other problems if boot times matter that much to you - maybe you should find out why you have to reboot so much that it matters. You know, other people turn their computer on in the morning and off when they either leave work or go to bed.

Then again, if you're one of those overclocking benchmark monkeys that need to get into BIOS 200 times a day, then you got a good point.


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive

Related Articles
Samsung Cranks Out 128GB MLC SSD
January 6, 2008, 6:34 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