Samsung's Fast 256GB SSD Goes Into Production
Samsung has announced that its ultra-fast 256 GB SSD has finally entered mass-production.
Showing that patience can be a virtue, the impressive Samsung 256 GB SSD that was first unveiled back in May has finally entered mass-production, but now with even faster performance. Originally stated to have sequential read and write speeds of 200 MB/s and 160 MB/s, Samsung has since been able to boost the drive’s write speed up to 200 MB/s and read speed up to 220 MB/s.
This high-capacity SSD is claimed by Samsung to be capable of saving 25 high-definition movies (10 GB each) in just 21 minutes, which apparently takes a 7,200 RPM HDD about 70 minutes to accomplish. Another aspect of the SSD’s performance is deletion speed, with the new SSD being capable of permanently deleting 256 GB of data in about 2.5-minutes. If being able to quickly wipe a drive clean is of importance to you, you might also like to know that the SSD is available with full disk encryption.
Please find below a chart for comparison that includes the new Samsung SSD and a select few other SSDs.
| Sizes | Max Seq. Read | Max Seq. Write | Form Factor | SSD Type | Interface | |
| Samsung SSD | 256 GB | 220 MB/s | 200 MB/s | 2.5-inch | MLC | SATA 3.0 Gb/s |
| Toshiba SSD | 256 GB | 120 MB/s | 70 MB/s | 2.5-inch | MLC | SATA 3.0 Gb/s |
| Micron SSD | 256 GB | 250 MB/s | 100 MB/s | 2.5-inch | MLC | SATA 3.0 Gb/s |
| Intel X25-E | 32, 64 GB | 250 MB/s | 170 MB/s | 2.5-inch | SLC | SATA 3.0 Gb/s |
| Intel X25-M | 80, 160 GB | 250 MB/s | 70 MB/s | 2.5-inch | MLC | SATA 3.0 Gb/s |
| Super Talent MD PX | 32, 64 GB | 170 MB/s | 130 MB/s | 2.5-inch | SLC | SATA 3.0 Gb/s |
| Super Talent MD OX | 32, 64, 128 GB | 150 MB/s | 100 MB/s | 2.5-inch | MLC | SATA 3.0 Gb/s |
As for power consumption, the new SSD is rated at 1.1-watts, slightly higher than the 0.9-watts the drive was originally stated to have. For comparison, a new ’green’ 500 GB 5,400 HDD from Toshiba this week had a rating of 0.6-watts, with its power consumption reaching 1.7-watts during seek mode and 1.4-watts during read/write mode.
The new Samsung SSD takes a 2.5-inch form-factor, has a thickness of 9.5 mm and weighs just 81-grams. Pricing is still unknown, but expect it to be steep. With Samsung expected to introduce a 512 GB SSD in 2009 though, we hope to see the price come down rather quickly.
- Nvidia Releases X58/SLI ForceWare
- Netgear's New LAN Powerline Adapters
- Toshiba Intros 500GB Green 2.5" HDD
- Mirror's Edge to Tap PhysX Technology
- Take the Tom's Hardware Survey!
- MSI and Asus Prepare to Launch All-In-One Nettops
- Mushkin's New Triple-Chan DDR3 Kits
- SGI Makes Molecule Supercomputer From Intel Atoms
- Ditch Your Commodore 64 for a Commodore Core i7
- Kingston Unveils 64 GB USB Sticks
- "Larrabee" Still Expected in 2009 or 2010
- S3 Gets a Leg Up on ATI and Nvidia
- Plextor Announces New Optical Drive Lineup
- IM Flash Starts Production on 34nm Flash Chips
- Tweak UI Utility Hits Vista, Sorta
- Hynix Announces World's Fastest, First 1 Gb GDDR5 Memory
- USB 3.0 Spec Finished: It's SuperSpeed USB
- Overclocking Competition: Germany Edges Past USA 8-2
It is nice to see technology progressing; only if I could afford it. (I can but I won't pay that much for a HDD.)
WOW ITS AN MLC DRIVE TOO, WHICH MEANS IT CAN BE CHEAP... LIKE $300 CHEAP!! [THAT'S FOR YA]
512GB IN 2009? THAT'S WATS UP
srry for caps, i can't see what im typing on the count of this crappy glitch
200mb/s max write speed? Now we're cooking. I wonder what the sustainable write speed is though. They only other one in the ballpark is Intel's X-25E.
I also have to wonder if the lawsuit by Spansion will have any effect on this though. A court order could stop sales.
Is this for laptops or desktop PC?
Lol,
Who cares how fast it is? It's MLC. One way street. No good for a computer that has a human controlling it. It's good for a one way data set where it doesn't have to access data all over itself constantly. Something Windows would rape it doing.
Mass producing for who? Pffft.
Go make this tech better. What a waste of `pre-market'.
I'm sure the hardware is awesome. But I'll wait until after AHCI drivers are mature. I guess this will happen about the time Windows 7 is finished.
i think hard drive makers should start their SSD research and development now.
in 2 years, this could get mainstream even in desktops that combine an SSD and hard disks.
I haven't followed this topic much so please forgive the ignorance of my question. What couldn't we just use a very fast SD or CF card as the OS boot drive? wouldn't that at least provide much faster access to the OS and cache files? Amy I missing something here? If that works then under the same idea, couldn't one use those same fast SD or CF cards for installation of games? Plug in your card of COD - World at War and your off and running.
I'm sure the hardware is awesome. But I'll wait until after AHCI drivers are mature. I guess this will happen about the time Windows 7 is finished.
I was going to rate you up, but then you said "you guess" which is absurd. This is going to happen with Windows 7, it's already been said. Of course, with the large variety of SSDs on the market, I think Windows 7 could very well make some under-performing SDDs look better, and some top ones drop in speed. It's just like a graphics card with bad drivers vs optimized ones. Current testing of SSDs seems to semi-void, seeing as how Windows 7 could change a lot of things.
What couldn't we just use a very fast SD or CF card as the OS boot drive? wouldn't that at least provide much faster access to the OS and cache files? Amy I missing something here? If that works then under the same idea, couldn't one use those same fast SD or CF cards for installation of games? Plug in your card of COD - World at War and your off and running.
Three words. Interface, size, longevity. I think it's self explanatory.
The interface of these cards isn't fast enough. SSDs are designed in a way that allows more simultaneous access to parts of the flash at once, which means you have to have a lot of bandwidth which only Sata currently provides (there are other interfaces too, but SATA is used currently for HDDs). Furthermore, SSDs have better wear-leveling algorithms, flash cards do not. This makes them better suited for long term storage and repeated use. Flash cards are only cheap because they lack the need for a good, fast controller that has a wide bus and can sort out information quickly to various sectors. This is where size comes in too. SD and CF cards are designed to be portable and small, not particularly fast. They are only intended for use as storage, so they are slow. Fast by older standards, plenty fast for basic small storage too, but if you've ever copied songs to an MP3 player you know that moving massive files or installing an OS would take awhile. SSDs are also better magnetically shielded, as they are designed to be put right next to electronics. I wouldn't put an SD card with valuable information on it too close to my speakers which contain magnets, but my Raptor X hard drive spins right next to my speaker inside my case on my office table just fine for years.
I wouldn't put an SD card with valuable information on it too close to my speakers which contain magnets, but my Raptor X hard drive spins right next to my speaker inside my case on my office table just fine for years.
I was going to rate you up, but then you suggested that a magnetic field might cause data stored on an SD card to become corrupt, which is absurd. Bits are flipped electrically in NAND flash, not magnetically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAND_flash
To the author:
Please try to be a bit more consistent.
If both set of are direct quotes, then it's ok. But if either one (or in this case, both) are not then keep things consistent and follow the order of the first set.
Otherwise, good article.
Quote:
""
Be ready to fork out $1,650
512GB IN 2009? THAT'S WATS UP
Be ready to fork out $1,650