Here's a prediction you can take to the bank. It will be imperceptibly faster than its predecessor. SSD performance "innovation" has pretty much ground to a halt. There isn't anything that can really be done at this point to change the user experience for the better.
use 2 sata ports and software that sets it up as a raid 0, there, just increased the speed by two... could probably have 4 way without to much extra cost too.
Modern SSDs are already awesome. Their performance doesn't need a major overhaul. Even with SATA, they have excellent transfer rates and more importantly rock incredibly high IOPS. Like Dovah-chan pointed out, what we need improved is the cost of high-capacity drives. If their 3D NAND eventually doubles capacity at all price points, I'm on board. I'd very much like to see a good quality 1TB SSD with decent performance hit the ~$250 mark.Here's a prediction you can take to the bank. It will be imperceptibly faster than its predecessor. SSD performance "innovation" has pretty much ground to a halt. There isn't anything that can really be done at this point to change the user experience for the better.
Modern SSDs are already awesome. Their performance doesn't need a major overhaul. Even with SATA, they have excellent transfer rates and more importantly rock incredibly high IOPS. Like Dovah-chan pointed out, what we need improved is the cost of high-capacity drives. If their 3D NAND eventually doubles capacity at all price points, I'm on board. I'd very much like to see a good quality 1TB SSD with decent performance hit the ~$250 mark.Here's a prediction you can take to the bank. It will be imperceptibly faster than its predecessor. SSD performance "innovation" has pretty much ground to a halt. There isn't anything that can really be done at this point to change the user experience for the better.
I dare you to actually sit down and document the difference in the user experience between using a Samsung 800-series SSD on a SATA-II port vs SATA-III. Then you can decide if we want Samsung to focus on developing a faster interface or if we'd rather have them focus on increasing density and economy so we can have TB SSDs as cheap as platter drives.we need sata 4 or sas... sata 3 is too slow!
I dare you to actually sit down and document the difference in the user experience between using a Samsung 800-series SSD on a SATA-II port vs SATA-III. Then you can decide if we want Samsung to focus on developing a faster interface or if we'd rather have them focus on increasing density and economy so we can have TB SSDs as cheap as platter drives.we need sata 4 or sas... sata 3 is too slow!
The reason the 840 EVO slows down is because it runs out of turbo cache space and then lowers the transfer speed. The 840 EVO isn't the best long term transfer performer and TLC is inherently less hardy or long lasting as MLC. Really turbo cache is both a blessing and a curse.
But the reason the drive became so popular is because of its cheap price, good overall performance, and nice feature set. Mix in that familiar Samsung brand name which naturally draws consumers towards your products and you've got a hot seller.
Also all drives generally reduce in speed after being over 50% full. Well now that might be a myth as I don't think no one has done any testing on that notion for SSDs but it's generally true for HDDs.