backtop


Print 20 comment(s) - last by StevoLincolnit.. on Jun 7 at 9:31 AM

SanDisk adds new high-performance SSDs

SanDisk has officially announced its new line of high-performance SSDs in the Extreme II family. The new SSDs include the U110 and the iSSD i110 integrated storage devices aimed at PC OEMs. The new SSDs are built using 19 nm manufacturing processes and use the SanDisk intelligent flash memory architecture.

“The SanDisk Extreme II SSD, our fastest and most responsive SATA III SSD to date, is a great option for gamers, PC enthusiasts or any consumers who want to get the most from their computing experience,” said Kevin Conley, senior vice president and general manager of Client Storage Solutions at SanDisk. “And, we’ve enhanced two of our most popular OEM SSDs to enable PC makers to push the boundaries of computing even further.”


SanDisk says that the storage devices are faster than the original Extreme SSD and the Extreme II delivers up to 550 MB per second sequential read and up to 510 MB per second sequential write. The Extreme II SSDs also promise up to 95,000 random read IOPS and up to 78,000 random write IOPS.
 
The 120 GB SSD is available at $129.99, a 240 GB version is available for $229.99, and a 480 GB version is available for $439.99.

You can read AnandTech's review of the Extreme II here.

Source: SanDisk



Comments     Threshold


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

.
By StevoLincolnite on 6/4/2013 8:39:45 AM , Rating: 3
Do you actually notice an improvement if you have say... An old OCZ Vertex 2 64gb and upgrade to something like this?
I mean, my system is already stupidly responsive due to the SSD's low latency in grabbing data, so never felt the need to get something bigger and faster, just interested if people notice a difference with stuff like basic windows tasks.




RE: .
By karimtemple on 6/4/2013 8:50:13 AM , Rating: 2
With basic Windows tasks, not too likely. But if you've got SATA 3 you might feel something. These drives come in larger capacities so that's likely to make a big difference too, in both workflow and performance consistency.


RE: .
By StevoLincolnite on 6/7/2013 9:31:50 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah got Sata 3, being a socket 2011 platform you would hope so!

Seems the general consensus is going by comments that I wouldn't notice anything, nothing worth $100-$200 anyway.


RE: .
By Flunk on 6/4/2013 9:43:27 AM , Rating: 2
I recently upgraded from a 60GB Vertex 2 to a 256MB Samsung 840 Pro. I noticed a bit of a different in certain circumstances, especially drive to drive sequential, but unless you're really pushing the drive it won't matter much. I upgraded mostly for the additional space, I still have the Vertex 2 in there as a secondary drive.


RE: .
By Flunk on 6/4/2013 9:44:16 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and it now boots in 15 seconds, 2500K, Windows 8.


RE: .
By kleinma on 6/4/2013 11:13:29 AM , Rating: 3
with a UEFI mobo, it would probably cold boot in about 5.


RE: .
By BRB29 on 6/4/2013 12:24:58 PM , Rating: 2
It should go a lot faster for smaller random read/writes performance. Sequential performance should've at least doubled. If you don't see a big difference maybe you're using the wrong SATA?

If you're just web browsing or any light duty stuff then it won't make much of a difference. Upgrading from a Vertex 3 to 840 Pro made a big difference in my computer. Transfer of any file was significantly faster. Those Win8 updates are much faster. Boot is under 10 secs and wake from sleep is pretty much instant. Probably about 1-2 secs since my monitor takes 3 secs to turn back on and my computer was ready to go before the monitor is fully awake.


RE: .
By tastyratz on 6/4/2013 3:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
ssd upgrades really don't make a huge difference honestly these days, not without significant random reads such as torrenting while working. I jumped from an agility 1 60gb to a corsair mx 120gb and while I saw a slight change it was nothing significant. It is usually the combination of other factors or your impact by firmware nuances that make the upgrade noticed. In reality while faster the hdd isn't the same bottleneck it used to be.


RE: .
By CaedenV on 6/4/2013 1:14:36 PM , Rating: 2
It all depends on what you are doing with it. My wife's computer went from a OCZ Solid 3 to a Vertex 3 on her old system and there was literally no perceptable difference. The system was capped at SATA2, and the Solid 3 was more than capable of maxing out that bandwidth, so moving up to the Vertex 3 when the Solid 3 died provided no real improvement.

Fast forward a year and I upgraded her platform from that older SATA2 Core2Duo setup to an Ivy Bridge i3 setup with SATA3. With the bottleneck out of the way there was a small but noticeable difference in load times. Nothing to really write home about, but it was a bit faster.

So in the end it all depends on what you mean by 'better'. If you are on a new enough platform, then yes, it will be a little bit faster at loading programs and games... but going from almost instant to a little closer to instant is probably not the best use of money. The bigger selling point would be on capacity, longevity, encryption capabilities on some drives, and power savings on laptops.


RE: .
By Kiffberet on 6/7/2013 8:42:26 AM , Rating: 2
'...moving up to the Vertex 3 when the Solid 3 died...'

So you went back to OCZ after your original OCZ SSD died?


RE: .
By fredgiblet on 6/4/2013 5:23:51 PM , Rating: 2
Not really. SSDs hit the point of diminishing returns a long time ago, the latest generational improvement is pretty trivial in actual use.


RE: .
By someguy123 on 6/4/2013 6:57:54 PM , Rating: 2
Compared to shifting from mechanical it's not much of a difference overall, though I believe the vertex 2 has issues with data that isn't easily compressible, so there may be a larger bump compared to SSDs without sandforce controllers depending on data.

Anything that needs high I/O like video editing still sees a pretty good bump with every update to SSDs, especially if you're working with 1080p raw footage.


Plateau already?
By bug77 on 6/4/2013 8:44:08 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
...up to 550 MB per second sequential read and up to 510 MB per second sequential write...


That's the same as the two year old SF-2281. Performance hasn't changed since.




RE: Plateau already?
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/4/2013 8:51:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
SanDisk says that the storage devices are faster than the original Extreme SSD
This is what they are talking about. Not other products.


RE: Plateau already?
By bug77 on 6/4/2013 8:56:47 AM , Rating: 2
I know, but the barrier seems to be there for everybody.


RE: Plateau already?
By CaedenV on 6/4/2013 1:01:57 PM , Rating: 2
The barrier is there because it is the limit of what you can push out of SATA 3. 550MB/s is 4.4Gbps, which (after overhead) is pretty much the maximum bandwidth possible over a 6Gbps connection.
This is why the new extreme high end drives are coming out with PCIe connections; SATA3 is (at least on paper) already saturated, and SATA4 is not due out for another 2-3 years yet.

However, lets also keep in mind that the 550+MB/s you see advertized is NOT real world performance. That is a synthetic throughput that is spit out by benchmarking software to find the theoretical throughput of a device. Most high end SSDs put out 1/2 or less of the rated performance in day to day use of loading software and files to the system. Still very fast, and even entry level SSDs make high end HDDs feel very slow, but the reality of the matter is that for day to day use we are really in the 250-350MB/s range of sustained throughput, which means we have another 2-300MB/s of improvement to make before there is a genuine 'need' to move up to a faster interconnect for normal users that are just loading software and playing games. For true power users and content creators the SATA standard is already long abandoned and replaced by PCIe, which will suit them well for years to come.


RE: Plateau already?
By Nortel on 6/4/2013 8:54:30 AM , Rating: 2
You might see some efficiency improvements. Laptop users would be the only ones concerned however.


RE: Plateau already?
By karimtemple on 6/4/2013 8:55:53 AM , Rating: 2
Those random r/w IOPS numbers are not typical for a drive from two years ago. And although it remains to be seen for these drives in particular, there's a big difference between theoretical throughput ratings and real-world performance. It's possible that performance really has changed.


RE: Plateau already?
By bebimbap on 6/4/2013 11:59:16 AM , Rating: 2
If you read the Anandtech review, the drive is MUCH more consistent at all usage levels compared to previous drives.

second, this drive has little over provisioning but still performs well even when "full." The reviewer even said before this drive came out he recommended to always leave 20% of the user space unused to keep performance high, in case of a 256GB drive that's about 52GB or 204GB left to the end user or 240/48/192 respectively, but he doesn't have to recommend that anymore after this drive came out.

though the read/write doesn't seem like big news, performance consistency, worst case scenario performance, and being able to use the "full" space allotted to end users is. even though the "best case" usage seems about the same, the lower end has been raised considerably.


RE: Plateau already?
By BRB29 on 6/4/2013 12:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's the same as the two year old SF-2281. Performance hasn't changed since.


You should really read the reviews of SSD. A bunch of them claim 500-550 mb/s. The actual performance is another story.


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber











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