Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Samsung Announces New SATA 3.0 6 Gb/s SSDs

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 23 comments

Samsung ratchets up its SSD offerings.

Samsung Electronics just announced volume production of SSDs that support the SATA 3.0 (6Gb/s), with new high-performance PM830 SSDs up to 512 GB densities. The new drives are expected to replace SATA 3Gb/s-based SSDs by year-end.

“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,” he added.

Samsung claims that its new 6Gb/s SSDs shortens system boot-up time to about 10 seconds, while its high-performance allows users to download up to five DVD video files in less than a minute. The drives also feature an AES 256-bit encryption algorithm

The new SSDs utilizes Samsung’s 20 nm class 32 Gb MLC NAND memory chip incorporating the toggle DDR interface with a proprietary NAND controller. This allows Samsung's new SSD to boast sequential read speeds of 500 megabytes per second (MB/s) and sequential write speeds of 350MB/s.

Samsung’s SATA 6Gb/s SSDs are available in 512GB, 256GB and 128GB densities.

Display 23 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 1 Hide
    JohnnyLucky , August 11, 2011 2:12 AM
    It's about time Samsung got around to offering SATA 3.0 6Gb/s ssd's. Their 470 series SATA 2.0 3Gb/s ssd's have a pretty good track record. Let's hope for a repeat performance.
  • 2 Hide
    mt2e , August 11, 2011 2:13 AM
    I'm no expert but "20 nm class 32 Gb MLC NAND" seems significant to me what do you guys think
  • 0 Hide
    legendkiller , August 11, 2011 2:29 AM
    What's the different between 20NM SSD and 30NM SSD? I Dont know why NanoMeter matters so much because i dont see improvement for smaller NM...
  • 0 Hide
    iwantamd7970 , August 11, 2011 2:41 AM
    Yeah you would think 20 nm means something but I don't know.
  • 2 Hide
    ralfthedog , August 11, 2011 3:14 AM

    LegendkillerWhat's the different between 20NM SSD and 30NM SSD? I Dont know why NanoMeter matters so much because i dont see improvement for smaller NM...


    The difference is 10NM. :) 

    It lets them make more chips per wafer. From the consumer perspective, you might see a price drop if they can keep the yield up.
  • 1 Hide
    ikefu , August 11, 2011 4:27 AM
    Traditionally, the smaller the circuit goes the higher the speed they've been able to squeeze out of it as well. Unfortunately, smaller sizes have also been linked to a diminished number of write cycles before failure.

    So higher speed but shorter life. However, for the average SSD user that life spans is still many years. Only the heaviest of SSD write cycle users will find the shortened life as a problem.
  • 0 Hide
    shadamus , August 11, 2011 5:34 AM
    Sweet. I've got two of their 470-series drives (128GB in an i5 laptop, and 256GB in my i7 laptop), and have not had a lick of trouble with either one. I would be willing to replace the 256GB 470 with one of these after I see a bit of a track-record...
  • 0 Hide
    crisan_tiberiu , August 11, 2011 7:07 AM
    An 128 GB, SATA 3 SSD its my next upgrade, but the question is Intel or Samsung, i like both ^^
  • 1 Hide
    rantoc , August 11, 2011 7:46 AM
    ralfthedogThe difference is 10NM. It lets them make more chips per wafer. From the consumer perspective, you might see a price drop if they can keep the yield up.


    Sadly it also traditionaly have resulted in less erase cycles per cell
  • 0 Hide
    becherovka , August 11, 2011 8:20 AM
    Less erase cycles per cell might not effect you for 20 years depending on low/normal usage, by then who cares. But I guess it will affect some people.
  • 7 Hide
    razor512 , August 11, 2011 11:53 AM
    What I find strange is people question the MTBF of the drives but they don't question the write cycles.

    I have personally killed ssd's in a few hours using spinrite (x25 v)

    Why doesn't tomshardware actually test how many GB of data can be written to the drive before killing it?

    the MTBF is extremely inaccurate, what makes you think the advertised write cycles are any better?
  • 1 Hide
    custodian-1 , August 11, 2011 1:57 PM
    A write cycle test will make a good article.
  • 0 Hide
    kureme , August 11, 2011 2:04 PM
    razor512What I find strange is people question the MTBF of the drives but they don't question the write cycles.I have personally killed ssd's in a few hours using spinrite (x25 v)Why doesn't tomshardware actually test how many GB of data can be written to the drive before killing it?the MTBF is extremely inaccurate, what makes you think the advertised write cycles are any better?

    By the time Tom's finishes these tests, the results will probably be irrellevant.
  • 0 Hide
    Auriacan , August 11, 2011 3:50 PM
    razor512I have personally killed ssd's in a few hours using spinrite (x25 v)


    Why on earth would you use spinrite on an ssd? That's just asking for the drive to be killed. Spinrite is for magnetic spindle drives, not for ssd. The constant reading/writing of sectors that spinrite performs would just destroy the flash memory, killing any chance of keeping your write cycles safe. Even ask Steve Gibson (the creator of spinrite) and he will tell you running spinrite on an ssd is a bad idea.
  • 2 Hide
    subasteve5800 , August 11, 2011 4:33 PM
    AuriacanWhy on earth would you use spinrite on an ssd? That's just asking for the drive to be killed. Spinrite is for magnetic spindle drives, not for ssd. The constant reading/writing of sectors that spinrite performs would just destroy the flash memory, killing any chance of keeping your write cycles safe. Even ask Steve Gibson (the creator of spinrite) and he will tell you running spinrite on an ssd is a bad idea.


    I'm pretty sure his goal was to see how long it would take to kill the SSD.
  • 0 Hide
    whobannedme , August 11, 2011 5:54 PM
    That's why it's called Spinrite! Spin it wrong and your SSD is toaste.
  • 0 Hide
    jgutz2006 , August 11, 2011 7:41 PM
    im pretty sure i could spin a SSD pretty darn quick.. lose control, drop/smash and get to the same outcome.....drive no worky
  • 0 Hide
    belardo , August 12, 2011 12:20 AM
    Samsung has to work on the SSD firmware. They are not the most reliable or fastest drives on the market.

    Sometimes, they are slower than a spinning HD.
  • 0 Hide
    alidan , August 12, 2011 6:07 AM
    razor512What I find strange is people question the MTBF of the drives but they don't question the write cycles.I have personally killed ssd's in a few hours using spinrite (x25 v)Why doesn't tomshardware actually test how many GB of data can be written to the drive before killing it?the MTBF is extremely inaccurate, what makes you think the advertised write cycles are any better?


    lets assume 5000 writes on a at 500mb write speed.
    1gb takes 2:42 to burn out.
    80gb takes 224 minutes
    128gb takes about 358 minutes
    256gb takes about 716 minutes
    512gb takes about 1433 minutes

    now these are insane numbers assuming max write is going at all times, and that you are getting max data at all times.

    in all likelyhood the numbers quoted would be about 2 to 3 times in a more real world insane write.

    and no user would ever do something like this, and i mean consumer, not server or such.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , August 13, 2011 4:04 AM
    i'd rather get one from OCZ/Patriot
Display more comments