Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Quick Look: Intel's SSD DC S3700 200 And 800 GB Drives

Quick Look: Intel's SSD DC S3700 200 And 800 GB Drives
By

Intel recently sent over a pair of its SSD DC S3700 drives at 200 and 800 GB. Our esteemed storage expert, Drew Riley, just put the finishing touches on his in-depth evaluation, which includes comprehensive consistency analysis, lots of performance detail, and our exclusive look at enterprise video streaming. 

How do the drives do? Well, they're very fast, owning to Intel's first 6 Gb/s storage controller. But perhaps more important, they do a fantastic job of delivering a steady experience. Drew observed high power consumption, but the new drives do effectively drive down the price per gigabyte of capacity using high-endurance MLC flash memory. 

As you'll see in the upcoming piece, the SSD DC S3700s rectify the value caveats we mentioned in Intel SSD 710 Tested: MLC NAND Flash Hits The Enterprise.

In The Lab: Intel's SSD DC S3700

Display 17 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 7 Hide
    excella1221 , January 24, 2013 9:08 AM
    800gb SSD. :o 
  • 1 Hide
    deksman , January 24, 2013 10:51 AM
    They can make far larger capacities than that (orders of magnitude larger - and in abundance seeing how we have ample resources and technology to do it)...
    Its just that it would be 'cost prohibitive' from a money point of view (in terms of manufacturing, and of course no one would be able to buy it).
  • -7 Hide
    jn77 , January 24, 2013 11:26 AM
    Considering how "cheap" it is to manufacture memory these days I don't get the idea behind SSD's still being over priced...... (With the understanding that higher volume cuts prices down). They will more than make their R&D back if more people can afford them in capacities people want..... I would honestly say 1TB is the "happy medium" between people that don't do anything with their computer but want room to grow, and power users that could use 2 x 1TB....... and right now 1TB SSD's are at least $1500 or more.
  • 2 Hide
    Anonymous , January 24, 2013 12:15 PM
    It's cheap to manufacture on a small scale--8, 16 GB is no big deal. But the more capacity you need, the more modules you need and it's not as simple as just slapping a few more flash RAM chips onto the board. Larger capacity storage requires changes in architecture and manufacturing, so they are understandably more expensive to make. And then there's the economic factor. They're likely artificially inflating the price somewhat so that it has someplace to go as the market embraces SSD's more. I'm no economist, so I can't really explain it, but I do know that there are some very good reasons why the price curve is what it is.
  • 3 Hide
    LukeCWM , January 24, 2013 2:24 PM
    Why are we talking about the size? The truly amazing thing about the S3700 is the consistent performance. No SSD has ever achieved this before.

    Second to that, the combination of reduced price (HP quoted me on an enterprise SSD a few months ago for only $18.72/GB) and endurance. The S3700 is rated for five full drive writes per day for five years under worst-case scenario data. This means the 200 GB model has an expected write endurance of greater than 3.5 PB.
  • 4 Hide
    Marcus52 , January 24, 2013 2:36 PM
    jn77Considering how "cheap" it is to manufacture memory these days I don't get the idea behind SSD's still being over priced...... (With the understanding that higher volume cuts prices down). They will more than make their R&D back if more people can afford them in capacities people want..... I would honestly say 1TB is the "happy medium" between people that don't do anything with their computer but want room to grow, and power users that could use 2 x 1TB....... and right now 1TB SSD's are at least $1500 or more.



    Yeah, right, because $4/GB for RAM is cheaper than $1/GB for NAND.
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , January 24, 2013 2:51 PM
    Nice vid!

    Impressive looking drives, but I don't know when I'll be in the market for a new SSD. I've been pretty happy with my Vertex2. It's like less than half the speed as these newer SSDs, but it still boots up Win7 in a few seconds. I might get another SSD sometime down the road and install Win8 on it, but I don't feel rich enough at the moment.
  • 1 Hide
    phate1337 , January 24, 2013 3:19 PM
    well, the 800 gb model is currently rated at around the $1800 price mark, but look at what it gives you for the price! incredible. just plain awesome. but that said, the seagate Pulsar drives come in a little cheaper, and are rated for 10 full writes per day, not just the 5 that intel are. i'd still shell out the extra for the intel personally, just because their previous 700 series are so good.
  • 1 Hide
    tsnor , January 24, 2013 11:13 PM
    Sorry to get a mainly content free video rather than the same lack of information in text. The total script of the video couldn't be more than a paragraph or two. There are many places I can read an article where I can't watch video.

    Looking forward to a typcially great article "...As you'll see in the upcoming piece,..." to replace this video.
  • 0 Hide
    LukeCWM , January 25, 2013 1:06 PM
    I think I mis-spoke earlier. I think it is 10 full drive writes per day. Find out at Anandtech. They know. =]
  • -1 Hide
    Soda-88 , January 25, 2013 2:57 PM
    excella1221800gb SSD.

    Crucial announced 960GB consumer oriented drives some time ago
  • 0 Hide
    hakesterman , January 25, 2013 6:51 PM
    They are Raping you on SSD, a $ 200 drive probably costs them $ 35.00 to make in mass production. Their eating stake an Lobster and your eating Fish sticks.......
  • 0 Hide
    Spooderman , January 25, 2013 10:42 PM
    excella1221800gb SSD.


    2 TB now
  • 0 Hide
    blackmancer , January 26, 2013 1:04 AM
    the sound on the video is very poor! was this a computer talking??
  • -1 Hide
    Anonymous , January 27, 2013 4:23 PM
    Dont understand why you don't look at OCZ's Revodrive X2 series instead. 2-3 times faster and the 960GB version costs around $1300. I mean if you are thinking of spending that kind of money why not get the best and fastest?
  • -1 Hide
    echondo , January 28, 2013 2:50 AM
    Much rather get a 960GB Crucial for $600.
  • 2 Hide
    LukeCWM , January 29, 2013 6:29 PM
    echondoMuch rather get a 960GB Crucial for $600.


    Maybe I'm on the wrong website, because I feel all of you have got it wrong.

    The Intel DC S3700 is absolutely not about being the biggest SSD around, or the fastest, or the cheapest. It's primarily about the being the first SSD we've ever seen to provide /consistent/ write IOPS over lengthy periods of use. And secondarily, it is about lowering the price of /enterprise/ SSDs to be within reach for small business, and to financially be an option for large data centers.

    The Crucial m500 is a pretty cool drive, undoubtedly. I could see video editing suites making great use of them, or gamers with lots of cash to put into their favorite hobby. But the m500 would fall apart if you put it into a database server receiving continuous reads and writes until it fails. Its speed would be abysmal, and it would fail within months of heavy use from reaching its maximum write-endurance.