Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Super Talent RAIDDrive II Plus PCIe SSD Writes at 3.2 GB/s

By - Source: TechPowerUp | B 18 comments

Super Talent's new SSD is very, very speedy!

Super Talent has announced a new PCIe-based SSD – the RAIDDrive II Plus.

This SSD is based on a PCIe 2.0 x8 interface, and features a total of eight internal SSDs connected through a SATA interface, configured to work in either a RAID 0 or RAID 5 array.

The RAIDDrive II Plus is a very high-performance SSD; it has read speeds of about 2600 MB/s, while it can write at up to 3200 MB/s. Consumer-grade SSDs with a single SATA3 interface are child's play, in contrast. On-board users will also find 1 GB of DDR2 SDRAM memory, which is used as a cache.

One of the notable features aboard is the unit's ability to send out notifications through SMTP, allowing the owner to receive information on the unit's status in case something goes wrong.

Super Talent will release the units with three different capacities, each configured with either a RAID 0 array or a RAID 5 array. There was no official word on pricing yet, but if you do want one when they hit shelves, you can expect to have to part with a rather sizable sum of money.

Display 18 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 4 Hide
    brandonjclark , February 17, 2014 12:08 PM
    I can only dream.
  • 4 Hide
    pbrigido , February 17, 2014 12:49 PM
    Bootable?
  • 0 Hide
    Damon Palovaara , February 17, 2014 1:29 PM
    If the price is right I'm getting that, just to make my friends jealous at my 5 second boot time (assuming it will be bootable)
  • -1 Hide
    knowom , February 17, 2014 1:30 PM
    You can do this with a USB thumb drive using supercache or fancycache and get pretty much the same results you would want a UPS as well if you plan to do delayed writes for the increased write speeds, but don't need a UPS for increased read speeds.Here's a example with a cheap 2GB Toshiba usb flash drive that had like 20mb reads/10mb writes or so w/o software caching from 2011 that I posted on tweakforce.http://s127.photobucket.com/user/knowom/media/Benchmarks/supercachessd.jpg.html
  • 0 Hide
    knowom , February 17, 2014 1:31 PM
    Quote:
    If the price is right I'm getting that, just to make my friends jealous at my 5 second boot time (assuming it will be bootable)
    I don't believe PCIe flash devices are bootable or past ones that I've seen haven't been at least.
  • 0 Hide
    bochica , February 17, 2014 2:00 PM
    I'm sure once more and more of bootable PCI-E SSDs become available, everyone will jump ship off the current SSDs. The problem is that some of these PCI-E variants are pretty expensive. Expect to buy your computer build two or three(+) times over to get one of these.

    Also Knowom, there have been bootable PCI-E SSDs. OCZ RevoDrive and ASUS ROG RAIDR for example. As for the USB trick, that only caches data, it doesn't store it like an SSD will. Plus USB 3.0 is theoretically 5 Gbps, and that barely equates to 600 MB/s. That is what a standard SSD pushes on the SATA 3.0 (3.2 being almost 2 GB/s). Also you won't have the capacity like you can have on SSDs with USB sticks. SSDs are finally approaching 1 TB (not efficient or cost friendly versions, but they are there), and USB you may find a 512 GB at best (costing ~$1 per GB as well).

    (Excuse the double post. The website tripped up).
  • 1 Hide
    leeb2013 , February 17, 2014 2:11 PM
    Quote:
    You can do this with a USB thumb drive using supercache or fancycache and get pretty much the same results you would want a UPS as well if you plan to do delayed writes for the increased write speeds, but don't need a UPS for increased read speeds.Here's a example with a cheap 2GB Toshiba usb flash drive that had like 20mb reads/10mb writes or so w/o software caching from 2011 that I posted on tweakforce.http://s127.photobucket.com/user/knowom/media/Benchmarks/supercachessd.jpg.html
    eh, how can a 20mb/s USB stick read at 2600MB/s (20800Mb/s)?!!
  • 0 Hide
    wysir , February 17, 2014 2:49 PM
    Quote:
    I'm sure once more and more of bootable PCI-E SSDs become available, everyone will jump ship off the current SSDs. The problem is that some of these PCI-E variants are pretty expensive. Expect to buy your computer build two or three(+) times over to get one of these. Also Knowom, there have been bootable PCI-E SSDs. OCZ RevoDrive and ASUS ROG RAIDR for example. As for the USB trick, that only caches data, it doesn't store it like an SSD will. Plus USB 3.0 is theoretically 5 Gbps, and that barely equates to 600 MB/s. That is what a standard SSD pushes on the SATA 3.0 (3.2 being almost 2 GB/s). Also you won't have the capacity like you can have on SSDs with USB sticks. SSDs are finally approaching 1 TB (not efficient or cost friendly versions, but they are there), and USB you may find a 512 GB at best (costing ~$1 per GB as well).(Excuse the double post. The website tripped up).
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1N81AZ4977
    1TB USB Flash, but obviously not as fast.I've been anxious for a while for one heck of an SSD running on PCIE ports that is both crazy fast and affordable.
  • 1 Hide
    icemunk , February 17, 2014 3:25 PM
    Pricing?
  • 0 Hide
    bochica , February 17, 2014 3:28 PM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    I'm sure once more and more of bootable PCI-E SSDs become available, everyone will jump ship off the current SSDs. The problem is that some of these PCI-E variants are pretty expensive. Expect to buy your computer build two or three(+) times over to get one of these. Also Knowom, there have been bootable PCI-E SSDs. OCZ RevoDrive and ASUS ROG RAIDR for example. As for the USB trick, that only caches data, it doesn't store it like an SSD will. Plus USB 3.0 is theoretically 5 Gbps, and that barely equates to 600 MB/s. That is what a standard SSD pushes on the SATA 3.0 (3.2 being almost 2 GB/s). Also you won't have the capacity like you can have on SSDs with USB sticks. SSDs are finally approaching 1 TB (not efficient or cost friendly versions, but they are there), and USB you may find a 512 GB at best (costing ~$1 per GB as well).(Excuse the double post. The website tripped up).
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1N81AZ49771TB USB Flash, but obviously not as fast.I've been anxious for a while for one heck of an SSD running on PCIE ports that is both crazy fast and affordable.
    And for a $2,100 retail price (before Newegg cut the ~$700 off) at that. Like I said, USB sticks in that range are more expensive than a faster/more reliable SSD. SSDs for that space are about ~$600 or less though it is on TLC (people would prefer MLC or SLC).http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100011693%20600038493&IsNodeId=1
  • 5 Hide
    Solandri , February 17, 2014 3:38 PM
    Quote:
    I'm sure once more and more of bootable PCI-E SSDs become available, everyone will jump ship off the current SSDs. The problem is that some of these PCI-E variants are pretty expensive. Expect to buy your computer build two or three(+) times over to get one of these.

    I really doubt everyone will jump ship. The problem is that MB/sec is the inverse of how humans perceive speed. We perceive things in terms of sec/MB. If something takes a fraction of a second, it's fast. If something takes several seconds, it's slow.

    How does that matter? When you invert the metric to sec/MB, the vast majority of your speed gain comes from upgrading from a HDD to a regular SSD. The speed gain from switching to a 3 GB/sec PCIe SSD is marginal. e.g. Say the drive needs to read 1 GB of data to boot.

    HDD (100 MB/sec) = 10 seconds
    SSD (500 MB/sec) = 2 seconds (8 sec improvement from HDD)
    PCIe (3000 MB/sec) = 0.3 seconds (9.7 sec improvement from HDD, 1.7 second improvement from SSD)

    So the 400 MB/sec increase going from the HDD to the SSD gives an 8 sec improvement. But the 2500 MB/sec increase going from the SSD to PCIe SSD only gives a 1.7 sec improvement. That's what happens when you invert the metric from human perception - the bigger the numbers get, the smaller the perceived improvement. The bigger the number, the less it matters. Both Toms Hardware and Anandtech have published articles pretty much admitting this. That the only reason they post benchmarks in MB/sec is because if they do it in sec/MB, all the SSDs look pretty much the same. They're all very fast and there's very little difference between them. They use MB/sec to exaggerate the difference and keep readers interested and coming back to their reviews.

    So if you look at the improvement range from HDD to PCIe SSD, about 83% of the improvement can be gained by buying a SSD. Going to a PCIe SSD only gets you an extra 17%. So unless PCIe drives drop down in price to where they're at most about 15%-20% more expensive than a SATA SSD, they're not going to really gain marketshare. They're going to be relegated to niche applications where you need super-fast access to large amounts of data (e.g. real-time video editing).

    It'll happen eventually because of the inevitable march of technology (the SSDs will have 16- or 32- banks internally instead of 8 so cost shouldn't really be a factor). But there won't really by a compelling reason for most people to ditch their current SSDs for the new ones because the improvement in perceived speed is marginal. Incidentally, RAM disks score about 6000-10000 MB/sec on these disk benchmarks, so we are getting close to topping out drive speed. It's already hard for me to tell when the computer is swapping on a 500 MB/s SATA 3 SSD.
  • 1 Hide
    fokka , February 17, 2014 6:56 PM
    @Solandri: this is a very interesting and eye opening way to view this topic!
  • 1 Hide
    InvalidError , February 17, 2014 7:56 PM
    You won't be doing 3000MB/s on a h77/z77/h87/z77 motherboard since the DMI 2.0 bus between the CPU and PCH can only do ~2GB/s after DMI and PCIe overhead. Of course, you could sacrifice a CPU-hosted x8 slot instead and I suppose most people with pockets deep enough to buy one of these for personal use can also afford going LGA2011.
  • 1 Hide
    JOSHSKORN , February 17, 2014 8:06 PM
    I'll sell my arms and legs for one of those if I have to!
  • 0 Hide
    rantoc , February 18, 2014 5:07 AM
    Does it have trim? If not the performance will degrade over time...
  • 0 Hide
    johnsaar2005 , February 18, 2014 12:17 PM
    I bought a PCI E revodrive 3 x2 240 gig drive from newegg refurbished with a 20 percent off coupon it came to 170 shipped. It has a 1.5gig read and 1.2gig write. my point is if you look you can already find this technology pretty cheap also whether it boots depends on the drivers and the company, but my revodrive 3 x2 boots, i have windows 8 installed and all i had to do was load the driver at the time of installation. It literally installed windows 8 in about 20 seconds from a USB 3.0 flash drive I about had a nerdgasm over it because even with a sata 3 samsung 840 pro it was no where near that quick.
  • 0 Hide
    johnsaar2005 , February 18, 2014 12:22 PM
    Quote:
    You won't be doing 3000MB/s on a h77/z77/h87/z77 motherboard since the DMI 2.0 bus between the CPU and PCH can only do ~2GB/s after DMI and PCIe overhead. Of course, you could sacrifice a CPU-hosted x8 slot instead and I suppose most people with pockets deep enough to buy one of these for personal use can also afford going LGA2011.
    on a x4 PCI E slot and a z87 i7 4770k I hit 1.5 gig read and 1.2 gig write with an OCZ revo drive 3 x2. I would love to try this new drive to see if i can get the full bandwidth reported in the article
  • 0 Hide
    johnsaar2005 , February 18, 2014 12:26 PM
    Quote:
    Does it have trim? If not the performance will degrade over time...
    windows 8 unlike windows 7 has unmap for SCSI PCI E devices so even if the drive does not the OS garbage collection will help. My OCZ revodrive has unmap or trim built into the controller and windows 8 supports it to so you have the controller garbage collection and the OS level garbage collection to takes alot off the controller so it doesnt have to work so hard.