The Velox V70 Will Re-Write Your SSD Experience

Status
Not open for further replies.

njt

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2011
49
0
18,530
0
first flash/ssds now the 1st phase change memory has shipped, products that have an inherent write lifetime limit. these are excellent in a phone or tablet where you'll never hit that ceiling, and in a number of server roles to cut down on power and heat, but imho not on the desktop. there are better alternatives in the pipeline without such a built-in weakness. not much reason to have taken such a long development time either, but of course people are happy to sell you devices with planned obsolescence at a higher price. you shouldn't be buying into these techs, stick to hdds until the good stuff comes.
 

serendipiti

Distinguished
Aug 9, 2010
152
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]njt[/nom]first flash/ssds now the 1st phase change memory has shipped, products that have an inherent write lifetime limit. these are excellent in a phone or tablet where you'll never hit that ceiling, and in a number of server roles to cut down on power and heat, but imho not on the desktop. there are better alternatives in the pipeline without such a built-in weakness. not much reason to have taken such a long development time either, but of course people are happy to sell you devices with planned obsolescence at a higher price. you shouldn't be buying into these techs, stick to hdds until the good stuff comes.[/citation]
have you tried any ? I suppose you don't. Don't even touch one of them or you could get SSDholic as me... ;)
It has little to do with boot time, it has to do with response times (specially when the hdd keeps spinning and spinning...), and to me it's worth the price, and I think that we often overlook that amount of money when choosing the CPU or GPU...
 

freggo

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2008
2,019
0
19,780
0
"coated in metallic gold, bringing a rich, pretty sparkle"

Yes, a "pretty sparkle" is a huge incentive to purchase internal computer parts :)

 

phishy714

Distinguished
May 16, 2011
449
0
18,860
28
"Unlike the traditional SSD, Velox V70 features optimized firmware and advanced Toggle/Synchronous NAND flash while utilizing the latest SandForce SF-2281 controller,"
The specs report that the SSD has a maximum read speed of 557 MB/s and a maximum write speed of 507 MB/s.
Yeah.. no.
 

master_chen

Honorable
Jun 20, 2012
1,215
0
11,360
43
>SandForce

Yeah, no.

I'll stay with my 120 GB Intel 510 (Which is THE best mid-range SSD on the market right now AND uses high-quality Marvell controller), thank you very much.
 

belardo

Splendid
Nov 23, 2008
3,534
0
22,790
2
Painting parts in shiny colors makes them faster and cooler.

Anyone remember the Soyo Dragon motherboards? They were white/silver motherboards. Their salespeople/techs said "its color makes the motherboard run cooler"! I bought one for the feature set, not the color/marketing. And it did LOOK very good in a silver-brushed aluminum case. One of the stand-off holes didn't match exactly (2mm off) and it was one of the most unreliable POS products I ever touched. SOYO died within a year or so. google the "soyo dragon" images.

Yes, the gold looks good...
 

master_chen

Honorable
Jun 20, 2012
1,215
0
11,360
43
[citation][nom]caedenv[/nom]a sparkly SSD is about as useful and wanted as a sparkly vampire[/citation]
Alec Baldwin is looking at you right now, with a very sad expression on his face.
 

Fabel

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2004
30
0
18,530
0
[citation][nom]njt[/nom]first flash/ssds now the 1st phase change memory has shipped, products that have an inherent write lifetime limit. these are excellent in a phone or tablet where you'll never hit that ceiling, and in a number of server roles to cut down on power and heat, but imho not on the desktop. there are better alternatives in the pipeline without such a built-in weakness. not much reason to have taken such a long development time either, but of course people are happy to sell you devices with planned obsolescence at a higher price. you shouldn't be buying into these techs, stick to hdds until the good stuff comes.[/citation]

After 3 years my first SSD (first gen 80GB Intel) is still showing less than 5% percent wear. After 2 years my second SSD (second gen 160GB Intel) is at 2% wear. Capacities (and speeds) will be totally useless well before they wear out. I only got HDD's on my media server and only for media, the system drive is a SSD too.

There are situations where an SSD may not be advisable, but for most users, In my experience of real world daily usage, on average HDDs got a shorter lifetime due to mechanical or electric failure. Furthermore, my oldest HDD is a 320GB IDE unit, and it is 7 years old and soon to be retired. By now my SSDs have proven me they can outlast any of my HDD.

Interface (IDE anyone?), speed, and increasing unrealibility as a mechanical drive ages are way higher concerns than wearing on a SSD.

Cost/capacity are the only concerns and if you can afford it really specific intesive writing usage is the only weakness. You can keep waiting until the good stuff comes, I'm enjoying the good stuff NOW.



 

CaedenV

Splendid
[citation][nom]njt[/nom]first flash/ssds now the 1st phase change memory has shipped, products that have an inherent write lifetime limit. these are excellent in a phone or tablet where you'll never hit that ceiling, and in a number of server roles to cut down on power and heat, but imho not on the desktop. there are better alternatives in the pipeline without such a built-in weakness. not much reason to have taken such a long development time either, but of course people are happy to sell you devices with planned obsolescence at a higher price. you shouldn't be buying into these techs, stick to hdds until the good stuff comes.[/citation]
Let us do a little bit of math shall we?
Windows ~20GB
Office, browsers, productivity software, and utilities ~15GB
Games ~10GB each, and we will go on a limb and say ~60GB total
Cache is equal to the amount of ram in the system so ~8GB
Small documents that you want to keep on the SSD for faster access time ~5GB
Total system drive we will round up to 120GB, which means that you need to purchase a 240GB SSD (because like HDDs you want to keep under 80% usage, granted it is for different reasons).

On average, a cheap consumer SSD (read: OCZ and Mushkin) can rewrite 100,000 times per block, times 500,000 blocks per 64GB, times 4 because we are getting a 240GB drive= 200,000,000,000 (200 billion) writes to a drive over its lifetime. All modern drives have write leveling, so your drive will wear down relatively evenly.
200 Billion writes divided by an expected replacement time of 6 years (that is my expected time frame anyways), and that gives ~33.3 Billion writes per year, or ~91.3 Million writes per day
That is 3.8 Million writes per hour, every hour, of every day, for 6 years. If you have a higher end drive then the write endurance is a bit higher, and this is not including the buffer allocated on sand force drives (nobody makes a 240GB drive, it is a 256GB drive with a 16GB buffer for ECC and bad flash replacement over time). Personally, my desktop does not see anything near those types on loads as it just houses my documents (which are tiny), internet cache (which is admitedly heavy, but still nothing in the grand scheme of things), RAM cache (which is untouched because I have 16GB of RAM), Games (which while they take space, do not write more than updates and save files), and Windows itself (which only makes changes on the order of MBs per day)

Add to that the studies put out by Google and other groups that own large server farms who say that SSDs last as long or longer than traditional drives. Yes, early failures do happen, so keep a backup of your important data (as you should anyways), but to think that SSD technology is any less reliable than a platter spinning some 5,400-10,000 times a minute is just silly talk.
 

CaedenV

Splendid
[citation][nom]Fabel[/nom]Cost/capacity are the only concerns and if you can afford it really specific intesive writing usage is the only weakness..[/citation]
And let us not forget that the time saved on heavy write operations (like video editing and encoding) will more than pay for the cost of the drives to begin with. Sure, it may bring an early death, but you could do so many more projects in the same amount of time that it really dosn't matter.
 

tntom

Distinguished
Sep 1, 2001
354
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]JustAnotherNoob[/nom]Why is this "news" and not a "paid advertisment"?[/citation]
It is just a new product introduction. Reputable magazines and news journals have done this for years. I have no problem with it as I often find them useful for my own personal knowledge base. Just like when Tom's announces the latest generation of Intel CPUs or Radeons.
 
[citation][nom]caedenv[/nom]Let us do a little bit of math shall we?Windows ~20GBOffice, browsers, productivity software, and utilities ~15GBGames ~10GB each, and we will go on a limb and say ~60GB totalCache is equal to the amount of ram in the system so ~8GBSmall documents that you want to keep on the SSD for faster access time ~5GBTotal system drive we will round up to 120GB, which means that you need to purchase a 240GB SSD (because like HDDs you want to keep under 80% usage, granted it is for different reasons).On average, a cheap consumer SSD (read: OCZ and Mushkin) can rewrite 100,000 times per block, times 500,000 blocks per 64GB, times 4 because we are getting a 240GB drive= 200,000,000,000 (200 billion) writes to a drive over its lifetime. All modern drives have write leveling, so your drive will wear down relatively evenly.200 Billion writes divided by an expected replacement time of 6 years (that is my expected time frame anyways), and that gives ~33.3 Billion writes per year, or ~91.3 Million writes per dayThat is 3.8 Million writes per hour, every hour, of every day, for 6 years. If you have a higher end drive then the write endurance is a bit higher, and this is not including the buffer allocated on sand force drives (nobody makes a 240GB drive, it is a 256GB drive with a 16GB buffer for ECC and bad flash replacement over time). Personally, my desktop does not see anything near those types on loads as it just houses my documents (which are tiny), internet cache (which is admitedly heavy, but still nothing in the grand scheme of things), RAM cache (which is untouched because I have 16GB of RAM), Games (which while they take space, do not write more than updates and save files), and Windows itself (which only makes changes on the order of MBs per day)Add to that the studies put out by Google and other groups that own large server farms who say that SSDs last as long or longer than traditional drives. Yes, early failures do happen, so keep a backup of your important data (as you should anyways), but to think that SSD technology is any less reliable than a platter spinning some 5,400-10,000 times a minute is just silly talk.[/citation]

Actually, depending on the game, games can write a lot of data. For example, per map/level played (also depending on the map/level whatever that you're in), some games can write between several hundred and over one GB of data. Some games hardly write anything at all, but this is not true for all games nor even almost all games nowadays. How true or not it was in the past, I'm not sure. It wasn't something that I cared to look into before SSDs came out and Tom's has done a few articles about it. Also, 33.3B writes per year might not be a difficult number to achieve.

According to modern studies on it, the average person can write up to around 10GB per month (non average people, such as gamers, might write quite a bit more than that). How many writes that would be, I don't know for sure unless every bit equals a write, but I don't think that it is a hard number to hit. I'd say that the drive can take quite a bit more than that if it has TRIM and if we count the buffers and such, so that's probably still not a big deal. Besides, it's not as if many newer hard drives aren't far from reliable these days, so the less reliable than the average hard drive (except maybe for some of OCZ's previous drives) seems to be a myth right now.
 

shushikiary

Distinguished
Jul 31, 2006
24
0
18,510
0
Well... our testing has shown that the write life cycle of a cell is closer to 30,000 for SLC, and 5,000 for MLC flash, and that's with 40 bits of ECC... That scares me, a lot. Not only this but it sounds like they are using combo mode, flash that can switch from MLC to SLC once ECC correction becomes required too much, and when you do that you half the size of the cell.... so sure it may last a longer, but when you're done the SSD is half its size, haha.
 

CaedenV

Splendid
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Actually, depending on the game, games can write a lot of data. For example, per map/level played (also depending on the map/level whatever that you're in), some games can write between several hundred and over one GB of data. Some games hardly write anything at all, but this is not true for all games nor even almost all games nowadays.[/citation]
News to me. What game needs to write to the HDD so much? Last I checked the game loads into RAM, and the ram is modified all to hell, and all that needs to be saved to disc is just statistics, game saves, and updates.
10GB would be 83,333 block writes (500,000/64GB=8,333.3 block writes per GB *10GB)

So putting the previous math into perspective here is the 'endurance' of my theoretical 240GB SSD running for 6 years:
Total of 24,000,009GB (aka 24 Petabytes) over a 6 year use is:
4,000,000GB per year
333,333GB per month
30GB per day
1.267GB per hour
21.1MB per minute

Now, if we assume an 8 hour day (because how many of us are writing to our HDDs all night every night?)
3.75GB per hour
62.5MB per minute

That is more than enough endurance even for most power users. Yes, people running huge loads of constant video editing/rendering, or monster databases for large networks will burn through this relatively quickly, but they are also going to purchase better quality drives with higher write endurance, and upgrade those drives every 1-2 years.
 

CaedenV

Splendid
[citation][nom]shushikiary[/nom]Well... our testing has shown that the write life cycle of a cell is closer to 30,000 for SLC, and 5,000 for MLC flash, and that's with 40 bits of ECC... That scares me, a lot. Not only this but it sounds like they are using combo mode, flash that can switch from MLC to SLC once ECC correction becomes required too much, and when you do that you half the size of the cell.... so sure it may last a longer, but when you're done the SSD is half its size, haha.[/citation]
http://www.bitmicro.com/press_resources_debunking.php
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/02/17/2011-year-of-the-ssd/
http://silvertonconsulting.com/blog/2010/10/18/what-emlc-and-eslc-do-for-ssd-longevity/
That is just a few articles, and they are all over a year old. Current write endurance is even better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS