Samsung Announces New SATA 3.0 6 Gb/s SSDs
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.
- SSD Storage,
- Samsung,
- solid_state_drives ,
- sata ,
- ssd ,
- nand
- Tom's Hardware Wants You: CPU Benchmarks 2011/12
- Deals for August 10: Two 21.5" Dell 1080p LCDs $249
- Report: Intel Prices Ultrabook BOM at $475 to $710
- IBM Drops 10 PFlop NCSA Supercomputer Project
- External Thunderbolt Graphics Adapter in the Works
- This is the Acer Aspire 3951 Air-like Ultrabook
- Deals for August 9: 30" Dell U3011 IPS LCD 25% Off
- SandForce Demos 24-nm MLC NAND from Toshiba
- Toshiba Glasses-Free 3D Laptop Priced, Dated for NA
- Seagate Continues Bet on Hybrid HDDs With Flash Cache
- Deals for August 11: 27" Planar 1080p LCD $229 FS
- Nvidia Signs On Cray Exec As New Tesla CTO
- IBM: PCs are "Going The Way of Typewriters"
- OnLive UK Launching on September 22
- Counter-Strike: GO Confirmed Coming in 2012
- Deals Aug 12: Unlocked Samsung Galaxy S II $649 FS
- Intel Hiring Sci-Fi Writers to Drive Technology?
- 30 Years: The Top Five Milestones of The IBM PC
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.
I'm no expert but "20 nm class 32 Gb MLC NAND" seems significant to me what do you guys think
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...
Yeah you would think 20 nm means something but I don't know.
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...
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.
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.
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...
An 128 GB, SATA 3 SSD its my next upgrade, but the question is Intel or Samsung, i like both ^^
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.
Sadly it also traditionaly have resulted in less erase cycles per cell
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.
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?
A write cycle test will make a good article.
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?
By the time Tom's finishes these tests, the results will probably be irrellevant.
I 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.
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.
I'm pretty sure his goal was to see how long it would take to kill the SSD.
That's why it's called Spinrite! Spin it wrong and your SSD is toaste.
im pretty sure i could spin a SSD pretty darn quick.. lose control, drop/smash and get to the same outcome.....drive no worky
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.
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?
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.
i'd rather get one from OCZ/Patriot
I am glad that Samsung is finally coming out with the 6 Gb/s SSD, but it really annoys me when they claim that "its high-performance allows users to download up to five DVD video files in less than a minute." If they had said you can transfer 5 DVD files from one SSD to another in less than a minute, I would accept that, but to begin with, I doubt any of us have the internet connectivity and bandwidth to download 5 DVDs in less than a minute.
Less hype, more benchmark please.
I am glad that Samsung is finally coming out with the 6 Gb/s SSD, but it really annoys me when they claim that "its high-performance allows users to download up to five DVD video files in less than a minute." If they had said you can transfer 5 DVD files from one SSD to another in less than a minute, I would accept that, but to begin with, I doubt any of us have the internet connectivity and bandwidth to download 5 DVDs in less than a minute.Less hype, more benchmark please.
if you are connected to a backbone line, you may have FAR higher bandwidth than the ssd can provide.
Let me revise my comment then... I doubt MANY of us have the internet connectivity and bandwidth to download 5 DVDs in less than a minute.