Sandisk unveils colossal new 256TB SSD with new UltraQLC flash memory — enterprise-grade SSDs for high density storage also come in 128TB
A major FMS 2025 announcement.

Sandisk on Tuesday introduced one of the industry's first 256TB solid-state drives, designed for applications that benefit from maximum storage density. The new SSD relies on the all-new enterprise-grade UltraQLC platform that is specifically designed for drives that combine high capacity, high performance, and high reliability.
Sandisk's UltraQLC 256TB NVMe SSD comes in a U.2 form-factor and uses the company's custom new multi-core controller, custom firmware, as well as 2Tb BiCS8 3D QLC NAND memory. In addition to the 256TB model, the company also announced its SN670 SSD that relies on the same UltraQLC platform.
One of the key features of UltraQLC drives is its Direct Write QLC technology, which lets the controller write data directly to QLC memory, not to a pseudo-SLC buffer, thus enabling power-loss–safe writes on the first pass. This design simplifies the writing process and reduces latency. However, the performance impact of such an approach is something that remains to be seen (more on this later).
In addition, the UltraQLC 256TB NVMe SSD features Dynamic Frequency Scaling, which purportedly boosts performance by 10% at any given power level, though the company does not disclose how this technology works. It is likely that DFS optimizes controller frequencies and interface speed depending on the workload, though we are speculating.
Also, Sandisk's UltraQLC 256TB SSD features a Data Retention profile that can reduce retention-related recycling by up to 33%, which promises to improve reliability, resilience, and energy efficiency.
Sandisk positions its UltraQLC platform as a strategic solution for hyperscale cloud service providers (CSPs) and enterprises building AI data infrastructure and requiring storage density, efficiency, and performance.
Speaking of performance, the lack of pseudo-SLC caching certainly has an effect on the performance of UltraQLC drives. Normally, 3D QLC NAND is three to five times slower and has higher latency compared to pseudo-SLC, so the 256TB drives are not for everyone. There are some things to keep in mind here.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Native QLC programming latency is significantly higher compared to pseudo-SLC (~800–1200 µs vs. ~200–300 µs for SLC), so sustained sequential throughput is lower than pseudo-SLC-cached SSDs for short bursts. However, since there is no limited pseudo-SLC cache, performance is consistent over long writes, which may be beneficial for large AI data sets that require hours to write anyway. Also, Sandisk can mitigate slow writes with a large DRAM buffer and smart mapping, multi-plane and multi-die parallelism in the memory device and the controller, and over provisioning (keep in mind that we are speculating).
Sandisk's 128TB and 256TB SSDs will ship in the first half of 2026.
Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News to get our up-to-date news, analysis, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button.

Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.
-
YSCCC For recent NAS availability it seems that they could make some money if they decide to have some QLC 8-16tb SATA 2.5" alsoReply -
-Fran- The worst thing about drives this large, is you cannot buy them in single quantities. You need to run them with backups or mirroring.Reply
Can you imagine losing 100TB+ of data? Holy cow xD
I'm just happy with 2TB drives for now. Cheap and easy to mirror.
Regards. -
YSCCC
TBF, U.2 interface are for datacenters where they're more or less cost no object, speed+data density in their NAS array is what's important-Fran- said:The worst thing about drives this large, is you cannot buy them in single quantities. You need to run them with backups or mirroring.
Can you imagine losing 100TB+ of data? Holy cow xD
I'm just happy with 2TB drives for now. Cheap and easy to mirror.
Regards. -
edzieba
Your backup does not need to be identical physical media (and it's generally preferable to be dissimilar). Depending on backup schedule requirements, you could backup your big SSD to a HDD array, or even to tape.-Fran- said:The worst thing about drives this large, is you cannot buy them in single quantities. You need to run them with backups or mirroring.
Can you imagine losing 100TB+ of data? Holy cow xD
I'm just happy with 2TB drives for now. Cheap and easy to mirror.
Regards. -
Amdlova These are big drives for sure.Reply
I want to know how many watts this drivers will burn. 150w ? -
JarredWaltonGPU
Pretty sure U.2 and E3.L power limits are in effect, with 25W on U.2 and 40W on E3.L. (There's potential for up to 70W on E3.L based on a quick search, but I don't know if that's sustained power or just for brief excursions.)Amdlova said:These are big drives for sure.
I want to know how many watts this drivers will burn. 150w ?
What I really want is a 128TB version of this configured with MLC NAND, or 64TB with pSLC mode! LOL -
George³
Technically, it's not a problem to do it right away. But you have to convince the manufacturers that your patience with them deliberately not shipping such devices is over. It has to be done by a lot of people, in a very convincing way that cannot be refused.Notton said:When are we going to see cheaper 16~32TB SSDs for the consumer market? -
abufrejoval These are clearly designed for high-density, low-power archival use and to be put into a very wide array with external write-back caches.Reply
I wonder how many of their limited overwrite cycles might just be spent on maintaining their flash cell charges, since those pesky electrons like to go elsewhere.
Also I presume, they might not take kindly to being powered off for extended periods of time.
I'm pretty sure I'm personally still better served by HDDs because of cost and technical constraints, while nothing yet beats less esoteric SSDs for hot storage.
SAN vendors started using those QLC devices to come very close to SAS HDD pricing with flash, but their technology investment in front of these storage devices was also significant.
With hyperscalers this is surely another level or three, but it's not hard to see how it would pay off for them.
Another nice find, Anton, thank you! -
-Fran-
Not quite. There's U.2 adapters for PCIe X16. I know, because I have plenty friends that do buy U.2 drives from data centres for their NAS'es. Overkill? Perhaps. Cool? No, not really, LOL. Expensive? Yep.YSCCC said:TBF, U.2 interface are for datacenters where they're more or less cost no object, speed+data density in their NAS array is what's important
They're not even hard to find and you have even M.2 to U.2 adapters as well. PCIe chaining is a magical thing.
Regards.