Seagate SandForce SF3500 Performance Data Leaked

[Guest]

While Seagate remained tight lipped about the performance of its upcoming client SF3500 at Computex, we just received several undisclosed details.

Seagate SandForce SF3500 Performance Data Leaked : Read more

 

[tom10167]

I hope speed isn't the direction SSDs keep going. I don't think anyone is asking to transfer 1PB/s with a queue depth of 512. At this point all anyone's wanting for is lower cost and consistent reliability without fancy software.

 

[Alec Mowat]

I hope speed isn't the direction SSDs keep going. I don't think anyone is asking to transfer 1PB/s with a queue depth of 512. At this point all anyone's wanting for is lower cost and consistent reliability without fancy software.

Performance increases ultimately equal lower prices on older technology. I'm looking forward to speed, personally.

 

[alidan]

I hope speed isn't the direction SSDs keep going. I don't think anyone is asking to transfer 1PB/s with a queue depth of 512. At this point all anyone's wanting for is lower cost and consistent reliability without fancy software.

there is only so much that can be done to decrease the price, i personally welcome the speed/performance gains as the other guy said, it lowers the price on older tech... get 2 older drives and either raid 1 or 0 them and get fantastic performance (just the risk of losing everything if one fails.

 

[wtfxxxgp]

I hope speed isn't the direction SSDs keep going. I don't think anyone is asking to transfer 1PB/s with a queue depth of 512. At this point all anyone's wanting for is lower cost and consistent reliability without fancy software.

That's a mighty serious risk though, isn't it?

there is only so much that can be done to decrease the price, i personally welcome the speed/performance gains as the other guy said, it lowers the price on older tech... get 2 older drives and either raid 1 or 0 them and get fantastic performance (just the risk of losing everything if one fails.

 

[danwat1234]

Max capacity of 1TB, really? For a new controller still not out and it doesn't support capacities above the capacity of SSDs we have now? Somehow I think this is a typo.

 

[Eggz]

My initial thought is "meh," but it'll be good if this thing delivers decent performance at a much lower price than the other NVMe drives. I think most people will appreciate an increase in the minimum speed of SSDs, rather than the max. Hopeful that drives a shift in advertising away from sequential transfers and toward small random access at low queue depths.

 

[xchoice]

Max capacity of 1TB, really? For a new controller still not out and it doesn't support capacities above the capacity of SSDs we have now? Somehow I think this is a typo.

Leaked data, may not be accurate!.....but who knows 😛

 

[CRamseyer]

Unlike some of the leaked data you may find from other sources, my leaks come with double confirmation. The capacity information comes from Seagate who we sat down with earlier in the day.

The maximum capacity may change when IMFT launches 256Gbit 3D NAND. SandForce has a long history of supporting flash released well after the controller hits the market. Also, the modular design of the SF3000 series means that a nip and glue upgrade could increase any specification without a full redesign. PCIe 3.0 support - chop, cut, rebuild. The same thing with the number of addressable flash channels. The core architecture is solid and in theory SandForce could drive future products from this base for many product generations.

 

[Pailin]

My initial thought is "meh," but it'll be good if this thing delivers decent performance at a much lower price than the other NVMe drives. I think most people will appreciate an increase in the minimum speed of SSDs, rather than the max. Hopeful that drives a shift in advertising away from sequential transfers and toward small random access at low queue depths.

Totally. My Vertex 4 is still a pretty well performing SSD and I really notice load time on some bigger games.
Star Citizen for example takes about 50 secs (counted in head, so give or take a few) to load from the launcher into my Asteroid Hangar with currently 10 ships in it.

I would be Very Happy for my next SSD to have double or triple that performance
personally



You can almost never have too much performance, there have been Many embarrassing moments of those thinking they had all we could "Possibly" need !!!

 

[skipperkins]

My initial thought is "meh," but it'll be good if this thing delivers decent performance at a much lower price than the other NVMe drives. I think most people will appreciate an increase in the minimum speed of SSDs, rather than the max. Hopeful that drives a shift in advertising away from sequential transfers and toward small random access at low queue depths.

Why is that better? For what applications is this a better reference?

 

[Eggz]

Why is that better? For what applications is this a better reference?

Almost all of what consumers do - opening programs, starting, restarting, loading games, installing updates, etc.- requires small, random tasks with low queue depths. So being able to do that very fast would be impactful, but drives tend to perform at their worst under those conditions. That's why knowing the slowest performance would be better than the best performance, at least for most people. They just want things to happen as soon after a click as possible.