OCZ to launch 6Gb/s SSD

OCZ to launch 6Gb/s SSD

The new range of SSDs from OCZ and SandForce haven't been detailed, but are known to include models with 6Gb/s SAS interfaces.

If you're still not convinced that solid-state storage has hit the performance levels you'd like, a collaboration between OCZ and SandForce might just change your mind with a range of 6Gb/s SSD devices.

The devices, which will use SandForce's SF-1500 and SF-1200 SSD processors depending on the model, will be available both in the more traditional consumer-level 3Gb/s SATA interface along with the decidedly enterprise-grade 6Gb/s SAS interface - potentially offering the fastest burst rate of any drive currently available.

Storage hasn't been forgotten, either: OCZ's SandForce-based SSDs will be available in sizes ranging from 50GB to an impressive 400GB, although the company has yet to confirm pricing for any models in the range. The company has, however, promised to firm up the details and offer some concrete information on the product range before presenting the devices atCES in 2010.

Ryan Petersen, chief executive officer of OCZ said of the partnership that "OCZ is committed to delivering SSD solutions to our enterprise clients and also has a strong following for our consumer solid state products; partnering with SandForce enables us to offer an even more robust offering to both these markets."

Although actual performance information for the devices hasn't yet been released, the use of the new 6Gb/s interface holds the promise of an extremely fast drive - although the use of 6Gb/s SAS rather than 6Gb/s SATA indicates the desire to sell the product to the enterprise market, which may well - at least at first - price it out of the reach of your average consumer.

Will you be trying to get your hands on a 6Gb/s SSD, or is this purely one for enterprise-grade rapid-access database servers? Share your thoughts over in the forums.


Discuss in the forums Reply
jsheff 11th November 2009, 11:19 Quote
I'm sure at those performance levels, even in a year's time, they'll cost around £10/GB. It's not the performance that's holding back SSD adoption, it's the price
law99 11th November 2009, 12:00 Quote
You can say that again.
kosch 11th November 2009, 12:40 Quote
I concur!
kenco_uk 11th November 2009, 12:47 Quote
Originally Posted by kosch
I concur!

+1 :)
kosch 11th November 2009, 13:05 Quote
An interesting article about SandForce
sear 11th November 2009, 14:24 Quote
My wallet just retreated into my pants a little bit more.
SMIFFYDUDE 11th November 2009, 17:15 Quote
Originally Posted by jsheff
I'm sure at those performance levels, even in a year's time, they'll cost around £10/GB. It's not the performance that's holding back SSD adoption, it's the price

Very true
alpaca 11th November 2009, 19:42 Quote
aha. i sense truth!
HourBeforeDawn 11th November 2009, 19:57 Quote
new tech, new price, thats how it always is... look at LED backlit LCDs, those cost less to manufacture then the older cathode backlit LCD but they sell for a higher price. Its always like that, the early adopters spend the green which takes care of research and development cost and then once thats done you start to see pricing drop closer to its production cost. For the time being we will just have to be a bit more patient. Im sure by mid/end next year SSD will be more of a norm then they are now.
shanky887614 12th November 2009, 10:38 Quote
i can't speak for anyone else but what really puts me off is the size of the ssd's becasuse what good is an ssd if you can only add so much (dont bother saying its just for your os and games)
becasue i like a lot of people convert videos on my pc and then transfer them over to another device and make backups of my pc's hdd i can't keep multiple backups of thee c drive with a ssd this small becauce i have a couple games on it and i only have 4 sata ports on pc motherboard (without pci card to add more) so you can only get at most 2tb why is it so small when we have 1.5/2tb hdd and we have 64gb usb memory sticks and they are small you can even get 32gb sd cards?
am i wrong or if you can get 32gb on an sd card why can't you fit at least a tb on an ssd it shouldnt be that hard?
mrbens 12th November 2009, 12:48 Quote
Shanky just use a big storage drive such as the fast Samsung F3 for your video converting.

Huge SSDs would be great but all you need, as you say, is the OS on it to make Windows and the apps used really nice and responsive and load pretty much instantly. You don't need to put games on it really either as it doesn't improve FPS, it just saves a few seconds loading times.

I got the Crucial 128GB SSD for £219 and I'm glad I did. I install most of my games to an F3 and they all load quick enough anyway to not need to fill my SSD.
shanky887614 12th November 2009, 14:05 Quote
yes but i convert a large amount of videos on a neraly daily bassis
but instead of this im waiting for sata 3 which should be better and i have a terrabite hdd and a 200gb for a backup of c drive
(partioned in to 3)
1. 200 gb (c drive)
2. about 700+ (d drive)
3. arround 200gb (f drive)
shanky887614 12th November 2009, 14:07 Quote
thats a fair point mr bens casue you can just move them from your c drive to another i forgot about that
becasue they dont affect registry

sorry for double post missed some stuff out
GregTheRotter 12th November 2009, 22:09 Quote
IMHO, 70gb is the smallest capacity I'd go for, for my OS disk.
shanky887614 13th November 2009, 09:13 Quote
yes but at min im using 90gb and all i got is about 4-5 games and all my programs
mrbens 13th November 2009, 12:30 Quote
My Windows 7, Program files, ProgramData, Users (which includes all documents and settings folders) only come to 24GB total. Which still leaves me 100GB to play around with for installing games. But as I already said, games load fast enough off a Samsung F3 anyway to not need to fill my SSD.
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