SanDisk Shipping New G3 SSD With ExtremeFFS

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Or, how about a 22nm Gen 3 512GB SLC x35-e from Intel being named the FFS?
TI think only such a drive would deserve such a name, not some junk like these...
 
[citation][nom]drowned[/nom]Like all SSDs, it looks good on paper but time will tell how truly consistent it is on the long term.[/citation]
I suppose like all testing there is more than one way to simulate conditions. Instead of running an SSD for an actual 5 years, having one in the field for 6 months but used by millions of people would show up any inherant flaws in the technology. So far I haven't heard any major issues to do with SSD's. Buy one, use one, don't worry about your data. If you put all your faith in HDD's dont forget that they fail too. As long as you do regular backups then all you have to worry about is the manufacturers warranty replacing it.
 
Trying to rate SSDs in terms of RPMs is pure stupidity. It's apples and oranges.

Oh well... I see what they are trying to do, they are trying to sell to "the parents" of the geeks and not the geeks themselves... I'll tell you one thing, my father doesn't know the difference between 5400, 7200, 10,000, 15,000 or 40,000 other than the numbers are bigger. He'd say, "I can get a drive that holds 5million photos and hours more video for MUCH cheaper, why would I want this?"

Oh well... My point is that SSDs are for geeks and businesses at the moment. Until prices come down the general population will opt for more capacity through pure ignorance.

 
@back_by_demand
You aren't looking; they are not nearly a reliable in the field as normal hard drives, at least not yet. With the current gen this remains to be seen. The reason that you don't hear as much about it is they are in raided in the corporate world failure isn't typically as severe as at home. They also have very low penetration, mainly as result of cost.
 
[citation][nom]rbarone69[/nom]Trying to rate SSDs in terms of RPMs is pure stupidity. It's apples and oranges.Oh well... I see what they are trying to do, they are trying to sell to "the parents" of the geeks and not the geeks themselves... I'll tell you one thing, my father doesn't know the difference between 5400, 7200, 10,000, 15,000 or 40,000 other than the numbers are bigger. He'd say, "I can get a drive that holds 5million photos and hours more video for MUCH cheaper, why would I want this?"Oh well... My point is that SSDs are for geeks and businesses at the moment. Until prices come down the general population will opt for more capacity through pure ignorance.[/citation]
How about telling him that it is twice as fast, makes no noise, no heat and uses much less electric.
 
[citation][nom]bydesign[/nom]@back_by_demand You aren't looking; they are not nearly a reliable in the field as normal hard drives, at least not yet. With the current gen this remains to be seen. The reason that you don't hear as much about it is they are in raided in the corporate world failure isn't typically as severe as at home. They also have very low penetration, mainly as result of cost.[/citation]
Actually I do hear about corporate use as well as home use. We have an experimental SSD raid being tested where I work and wether it is SSD or HDD if any of them fail the impact is mitigated by that fact of redundancy in the raid setup. Home users dont tend to have raid arrays so disk failure can be more distressing, but as stated earlier, as long as you do regular backup you should have no problems.
I personally have had several hard drives fail and have been lucky enough to spot the signs of drive failure in advance and not lost data, but have yet to have any SSD problems.
Watch this space.
 
[citation][nom]rbarone69[/nom]Trying to rate SSDs in terms of RPMs is pure stupidity. It's apples and oranges.Oh well... I see what they are trying to do, they are trying to sell to "the parents" of the geeks and not the geeks themselves... I'll tell you one thing, my father doesn't know the difference between 5400, 7200, 10,000, 15,000 or 40,000 other than the numbers are bigger. He'd say, "I can get a drive that holds 5million photos and hours more video for MUCH cheaper, why would I want this?"Oh well... My point is that SSDs are for geeks and businesses at the moment. Until prices come down the general population will opt for more capacity through pure ignorance.[/citation]

It's not that everyone is ignorant. Some of us, like me, just don't have $400 to blow on a laughable amount of storage. Even as a boot drive, 120GB is minuscule at best. Until 256GB or even 512GB drives are the norm, many people just can't justify the price. Especially when you consider that you still need that old 7,200 rpm drive to hold the majority of your files (which renders the SSD useless for all but an increase in your page file performance). It's an issue of practicality, not idiocy.
 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]How about telling him that it is twice as fast, makes no noise, no heat and uses much less electric.[/citation]

and holds less than 1/10th of the data. I bet if the mechanical harddrive space lowered the capacity back to 60gigs and spin it as fast as a raptor or a 15000 rpm sas drive you would sustain 200MB read. The ssd would still do better I/O. Fact of the matter is I can wait the 1/10th of a second longer to load a program, for 2terabytes more space. Everytime I load a movie its going to take that long anyway because its not going to be stored on the SSD. With 60 gig you would have to install a game, uninstall a game, install a new game. Which pretty much negates any speed increase.
 
[citation][nom]thackstonns[/nom]With 60 gig you would have to install a game, uninstall a game, install a new game. Which pretty much negates any speed increase.[/citation]
That is a good point, I have all my games installed on a separate drive anyway. The OS and all programs on the SSD, games on a HDD, files on another, videos and music on 2 more HDDs.
The majority of the fast SSD stuff is for editting HD video and big-ass RAW pics from the DSLR. !2gb ram means I have switched off my page-file and boot from cold in less than 30 seconds, (including the annoying POST and BIOS splash screens). But benchmarking aside everthing simply feels snappier, the second I replaced the OS HDD with an SSD it felt smoother. I dont feel as if my wallet was raped either as £150 for a 60Gb OCZ Agility was quite reasonable. This depite the fact I have 4 other HDDs in the system. As far as reliability is concerned, I have weighed the factors and the arguement for wear leveling has convinced me that if a sector fails on the SSD the algorithms will seal it off and I can continue to use the drive without worry, but no HDD has convinced me yet that if a sector fails to do anything other buy a new HDD.
 
I admit I would like photoshop and priemer to load faster than they do. But to be honest I usually leave them open. I have 8 gigs of ram and also turned the page file off. I just dont see how it would speed up HD video encoding, you are still pulling off a slower hard drive. I havent used a pc that has an ssd, so I am by no means even qualified to guess at the performance. But I dont have one because everything I use media wise has to be on an old mechanical drive anyway. I want an ssd I think I need an ssd, but everytime I go to buy one I end up with another terabyte drive instead. As far as reads and writes go, my Samsungs f3 drives do pretty well in raid. When they get cheaper and bigger maybe.
 
still cant afford to get one ~
hopefully next year they can bring down the price ~
and we can get a cheaper laptop with SSD inside ^_^
 
As someone who has been installing SSDs into notebooks, and not the cheap ones. The difference in performance is night and day.

Everything pops. Windows7 boots in about 12~14 seconds on a 2 year old notebook that was taking closer to 2mins with a 7200rpm HD.

So, for a BOOT drive, 40~64GB is enough. You boot the OS such as Windows7 which is 10~12GB. Your other apps and office programs. Typical prep computer (no user data) is about 15GB of space. Turn off the VM (Swap file) and Restore and you're down to 11~12GB of space. That allows a good amount of space for wear leveling that the drive will late 3~6 years. By then, you'll be able to pick up a 500GB SSD that is 6Gb/s transfer rate (about 500mb per sec vs todays 220~280) for about $150. Then use your typical $50~100 7200RPM drive to hold your data files and games.
 
Still waiting for the affordable SSD drives!
Prices have not dropped as first expected.

I want to find perhaps less fast, but energy efficient and very cheap SSD drives for netbooks and budget laptops!
A drive that costs less than $75 for 24-32 GB would be great; or a $49.99 drive of 16GB is more than good enough!

as long as you run XP, don't modify too many files, (basically use your system to boot run a prog, and shutdown) an SSD lasts pretty long even without trim command!
My 4GB Asus EeePc is faster than most laptops and notebooks with a SATA2 hd!
The speed for netbooks and budget laptops really shouldn't matter as some have a bridge with limit of 60MB/s anyways.

If some manufacturers would not focus on extreme speed, but affordability, and still can get speeds of around 60MB/s Read/Write, we'd still have an amazing boost in boot/shutdown speed of the OS and of programs.

The majority of people boot and shut down programs rather than copy files to and from their SSD; and even if they copy files, I don't think it matters much if they have to copy the files to an external USB stick or ext harddrive, since they are much slower anyways!
 
[citation][nom]thackstonns[/nom]I just dont see how it would speed up HD video encoding, you are still pulling off a slower hard drive.[/citation]
When I store the finished product it is on the HDDs, but the raw footage I put on the SSD whilst working on it. Once I have made changes the saving and encoding defo run faster. then I transfer it to the HDDs for long term storage.
 
80TB before the drive dies, each day how much data do you thing is written to the drive for use as swap space, browser cache and all of the other various caches and the updating of some data and the other random read and writes to the drive?

windows is always doing something to the drive, a SSD will not last as long as a regular drive and they don't show signs of failing.

I know many people who resorted to killing their SSD's using spinrite and amny other apps, those programs can kill a SSD within a a few days because of the very limited number of write cycles, some people do this in order to return a drive for a refund when they find that the drive only rarely functions ad advertised speeds and in many cases will function around the same speed as a 7200RPM drive, just with slightly faster read speeds of certain tiny files

Forcing windows to use a flash drive as page file can kill the flash drive within a few days.

while SSD's are a good performance boost, they are not for you if you want a hard drive that will last a few years in your computer, 80TB may seem like a lot but you can do 80TB of writes in a very short time.

I will wait until SSD's have a much larger write count before I ever consider buying one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom