bit-tech.net

Super Talent launches “affordable” 512GB SSD

Super Talent launches “affordable” 512GB SSD

Super Talent's new MasterDrive RX SSD takes advantage of RAID to boost performance, and take the capacity up to 512GB.

Someone should probably tell Super Talent what “affordable” really means, unless the company intends it to mean “only affordable to wealthy willy wavers”, but that doesn’t appear to be the case here.

Describing its new 512GB MasterDrive RX SSD, Super Talent says that SSDs are “no longer just for the military, enterprise and elite users, the MasterDrive RX SSD is truly affordable.” Sadly, Super Talent’s definition of “truly affordable” means $1,449.99 US (£985.32), which may be significantly cheaper than previous top-end SSDs, but is still a ludicrous price when a 500GB hard drive can be bought for less than £50.

That said, if you have the money then the drive promises some interesting features. At the top of the list is the use of RAID inside the SSD to boost performance. It’s a system that Super Talent claims to have patented, and the company’s senior product marketing manager, Jeremy Werner, explained that “from a performance standpoint it’s like having two SSDs in the space of one, and it extends our standard 2.5in SATA-II product line to include a 512GB SSD.”

Super Talent’s RAIDSSD technology was first revealed earlier this month in the details of a new PCI-E SSD card, and the company claims that it helps to enable the new 2.5in SATA II drives to offer “the fastest sequential read and write speeds in the market.” These range from a maximum sequential read and write speed of 230MB/sec and 160MB/sec respectively on MLC-based units, and 230MB/sec and 200MB/sec on SLC-based drives.

As a point of comparison, Corsair’s recently-announced P256 boasts an identical quoted sequential write speed of 200MB/sec and a slightly slower read speed of 220MB/sec. Meanwhile, Intel’s flagship X25-E has a higher quoted sequential read speed of 250MB/sec, but a slower quoted sequential write speed of 170MB/sec. Super Talent’s MLC drives will have a two-year warranty, and will be available in capacities of 128GB, 256GB and 512GB. Meanwhile, the SLC drives will have a three-year warranty and will come in 128GB and 256GB flavours.

With capacities of 512GB, solid state disks are certainly starting to catch up with hard drives, and while their prices are still very high, they’re gradually starting to come down. When do you think it will be worth making the switch to solid state storage in your PC, or have you done so already? Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

14 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
ChaosDefinesOrder 10th April 2009, 12:49 Quote
OK manufacturers, enough now. Your drives are fast enough and larger enough, stop willy waving and start focussing all your efforts on making them affordable. It's a sound economic principle: Expensive and hardly any sold, compared to cheap and LOTS sold - the latter will almost always make more profit in the long term. Valve has proved this many times with its Steam sale weekends.
Yemerich 10th April 2009, 12:52 Quote
Sorry about my ignorance, but is there any real reason to choose SSD rather than a HD? I heard that SSD have a shorter life than HD, is that true?

The only reason to choose SSD in my mind is for space saving and it is more resistant to phisical shock.
robyholmes 10th April 2009, 14:16 Quote
Yemerich - Speed :)
B1GBUD 10th April 2009, 14:17 Quote
20x the cost but for 20x performance? I very much doubt it.
Ta10n 10th April 2009, 15:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosDefinesOrder
OK manufacturers, enough now. Your drives are fast enough and larger enough, stop willy waving and start focussing all your efforts on making them affordable. It's a sound economic principle: Expensive and hardly any sold, compared to cheap and LOTS sold - the latter will almost always make more profit in the long term. Valve has proved this many times with its Steam sale weekends.

Fact is that most of the effort towards making the drives affordable is on the consumer side. As those amongst us with way too much disposable income start throwing down the dough for SSD's the manufacturers will start ramping production. The larger the volume of sellable production the more attractive the market segment looks from a profit perspective. As more and more companies hop on the band wagon prices are driven through the floor due to extreme competition. Look at any number of pieces of modern technology, LCD TV's, Blu Ray players, computers, you name it, it happens with all of them. In this case we can see why newcomers like Corsair, and even Western Digital are moving into the market. They see the potential for big profits, because people are finally starting to purchase the product in a sizeable volume. Mind you I think that we'll see sales in the low capacity drives (30-60gb) skyrocket first, with high-cap drive sales coming up more slowly. But eventually I think we'll see prices drop and the cost delta between capacities drop as well.

So if everyone went out and bought one of those 30Gb OCZ Vertex drives to boot from, the combined action would reduce price, meaning that in the next few months you could probably pick up one of the monster drives like the one above for around $200 ;)
Drexial 10th April 2009, 15:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yemerich
Sorry about my ignorance, but is there any real reason to choose SSD rather than a HD? I heard that SSD have a shorter life than HD, is that true?

The only reason to choose SSD in my mind is for space saving and it is more resistant to phisical shock.

haven't been around tech sites much for the last few months?

SSDs offer a pretty substantial leap in performance over standard HDD performance. There is 0 seek time because its all instant addressing. There is no read head that has to search out the address on the disk. It just reads directly from the address.

The mean time between failure on OCZ Vertex drives is 1.5 million hours. that's right MILLION hours. One company reported that their drives could have 30gigs a day written and erased for 1400 years before the drive would fail because of the algorithms in place to prevent the drive from burning out.

There are still some bugs to work out. There are issues with stuttering being reported and the JBMicron controller chips are less then stellar. They stutter so much in some tests that 5400 RPM drives out perform them.

Look into the latest reviews into these drives and you will see exactly why they are as amazing as they sound.
Veles 10th April 2009, 16:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexial
The mean time between failure on OCZ Vertex drives is 1.5 million hours. that's right MILLION hours.

Wow that's 127 years of continual use.

I'm very tempted to get a smallish SSD as a boot (and maybe game drive if I can afford a bigger one) when I get round to upgrading my PC again. Though that's gonna have to wait a while for a decent job.
Jerz 10th April 2009, 18:04 Quote
I wonder what their sample size was for that mtbf test, 100,000? >> SSDs are nice but I still think by the time they are ready in price for mass market we'll have some better solid state storage tech blossoming than old nand flash. Regardless I'll keep dreaming of a computer using nothing but 100s of gigs of static ram. I still wonder what kind of computers Bill Gates has.
n3mo 10th April 2009, 21:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexial
The mean time between failure on OCZ Vertex drives is 1.5 million hours. that's right MILLION hours.

Don't look on MTBF, it doesn't mean anything basically. Well, IBM Deskstar 75GXP had an MTBF of a 1.5 milion hours and we know how it worked :) MTBF measure is weird and doesn't tell anything about real-life situations. With new SSDs you can expect 2-5 years of working as a boot drive, then they're just too unreliable. And buy only SSDs with buffer to use as a boot/extensive use drive, the ones without it are too annoying (they hang for a second during intensive write).
Anakha 10th April 2009, 23:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Summary
At the top of the list is the use of RAID inside the SSD to boost performance. It’s a system that Super Talent claims to have patented

Wow. I personally have Prior Art on this, on these very forums!

http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost.php?p=1463110&postcount=1

Yup, that's me, talking about RAIDing flash SSDs together, way back in April 2007.

So, erm, no patent here. Sorry.
leexgx 11th April 2009, 03:48 Quote
his post is to long

as long as you ignore any Jmicron based SSDs or look for ones that have cache on them, as thay not be based on jmicron untill 4Q this year or next year 1Q

for ssd should last 10 years before they start to fail (bigger the SSD the longer should last as there are more Cells to use) but really depends what you do and how good the Wear levelling is in the SSD (intel dedicate 64mb for it to monitor and make sure it last as long as it can)

only way i can think to kill SSD short time is most likely Not going happen in norm use of an SSD or an harddisk, is filling an SSD to the point it has little space (talking like less then 10MB or maybe smaller) and doing lots of writes 512KB writes is an good way to kill off some of the cells as it can only wipe 512KB cells (think its that) around 10,000 times, But can write 4KB blocks into that cell once it has been wiped so 10k can be alot

basic way to work out how long an cell will take to die is divide disk size in KB by the amount the Cell size that is 512KB, then times that By 10,000 thats how many Writes it would take to make an cell die (about any way) and if you work that out it is alot (64gb is about 25,600,000,000 Cell wipes (thay have to be 512KB per write But if its smaller writes like 4k then your starting to mess with number of writes that would be alot of writes) i recommend you to look at this first http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531&p=5 and page 6 as it explanes how it works blocks and cells
but that is the wear levelling working perfectly you could half that and still alot of writes most users do not Write 30gb per day to there hard drives so 10 years for ssd should be good, intel in this case is likey to last for an very long time as whats what the 64mb part is for not cache like what is been used on indix vertex drive)
feathers 11th April 2009, 12:34 Quote
What a joke! Supertalent should get their facts straight before bragging.

The OCZ Vertex uses an internal RAID 0. I have a 30gb OCZ Vertex which has 128gb internal mem structure which is divided by 4 (4 disk internal raid 0) to give 32gb of very fast storage. My 30gb ocz vertex scores as follows on HDTune 3.00

Minimum: 149.4mb/sec
Maximum: 217.6mb/sec
Average: 204.8mb/sec
Access time: 0.1ms
Burst rate: 183.5mb/s

So the supertalent isn't much faster. 512gb capacity is great though but not at that price.
naokaji 12th April 2009, 00:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexial
haven't been around tech sites much for the last few months?

SSDs offer a pretty substantial leap in performance over standard HDD performance. There is 0 seek time because its all instant addressing. There is no read head that has to search out the address on the disk. It just reads directly from the address.

Except for small file write speed where they collapse and can't even get above single digit write speeds....
desertstalker 12th April 2009, 08:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by naokaji
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexial
haven't been around tech sites much for the last few months?

SSDs offer a pretty substantial leap in performance over standard HDD performance. There is 0 seek time because its all instant addressing. There is no read head that has to search out the address on the disk. It just reads directly from the address.

Except for small file write speed where they collapse and can't even get above single digit write speeds....

Neither can a conventional HDD, for random small writes anyway.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums