bit-tech.net

OWC teases 600MB/s Mercury Viper 3.5in SSD

OWC teases 600MB/s Mercury Viper 3.5in SSD

OWC's Mercury Viper is a rare breed: a 3.5in solid-state drive offering a claimed 600MB/s throughput and capacities up to 1,920GB.

Other World Computing (OWC) has announced what it claims is the industry's fastest 3.5in solid-state drive (SSD) with speeds of up to 600MB/s: the Mercury Viper.

Best known for its range of after-market Apple add-ons, OWC's latest creation is one of those rare beasts: a 3.5in SSD. In a market where most manufacturers choose to pack the components required for solid-state storage into a 2.5in casing - giving it immediately compatibility with both desktops and laptops - OWC has instead opted for a larger 3.5in chassis, although with no images of the internals yet available it's not known whether this is for anything other than aesthetic purposes.

The advantage of the Mercury Viper over rival 2.5in devices comes in its performance: according to OWC's internal testing, the drive is capable of hitting read speeds of 600MB/s - and while firm performance figures have yet to be shared, that's an impressive achievement in a market where the best drives hover around the 500-520MB/s mark. Whether the drive will live up to OWC's promises in independent testing, however, remains to be seen.

The company is further claiming that the drive will launch in a wide range of capacities starting with an entry-level - if such a term is valid for a company's flagship storage device - 240GB model giving way to regularly-sized units up to the pinnacle device storing 1,920GB.

While OWC has somewhat cheekily claimed that its 1,920GB SSD is a 2TB model, it's still an impressively capacious design that should satiate pro-grade users' need for high speed coupled with high capacity - and without the use of PCI Express-connected SSD solutions, which typically come with a raft of restrictions attached including limited operating system support and the inability to use them as boot drives.

Sadly, there's one thing OWC isn't yet sharing: the price. With talk of targeting both the professional user and gamer, it's likely that the Mercury Viper will be priced towards the very top end of the market - and while the "2TB" model might sound tempting, its price tag will likely put it out of the reach of all but the most well-heeled enterprise customers.

OWC has promised to reveal full specifications, shipping dates and pricing information for the Mercury Viper line of SSDs within the next two months.

38 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
bigc90210 15th January 2013, 12:43 Quote
god yes. they should have been making a selection of 3.5" ssd's since the start, hopefully this is the start of a new trend of 3.5" SSD's with extreme capacity and performance :D would love for these to hit mainstream!
Si_the-dude 15th January 2013, 12:49 Quote
AT LONG LAST! A 2TB 3.5" SSD is the stuff dreams are made of :D
Anfield 15th January 2013, 13:24 Quote
My bet is on it being two ssds in raid0.
Harlequin 15th January 2013, 13:40 Quote
Quote:
While OWC has somewhat cheekily claimed that its 1,920GB SSD is a 2TB model

and still somewhat more than the 1862 you`ll get when you format a blank 2tb drive
damien c 15th January 2013, 13:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si_the-dude
AT LONG LAST! A 2TB 3.5" SSD is the stuff dreams are made of :D

Sounds good but the price is going to be really high.

As for the 3.5" SSD vs 2.5" I think I will stick to my 2.5" as they are easier to mount if you don't have any hdd cages.
Corky42 15th January 2013, 14:02 Quote
By the time you take protocol and encoding overhead into account the maximum throughput for Sata 3 is about 570Mb/s, so im calling BS.
And seeing as some high end SSD are hitting 550Mb/s i don't see the point in this drive for an extra 20Mb/s.

Also there is no mention what the max IOPS is and AFAIK that's what really matters when using a drive for the OS.
Anfield 15th January 2013, 14:08 Quote
At 2TB you wouldn't just use it for the OS any more though.
Si_the-dude 15th January 2013, 14:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anfield
At 2TB you wouldn't just use it for the OS any more though.

Bingo! This is what's really exciting about it for me. Long term it would be amazing to have a couple of 2TB SSDs in RAID0 just as the day to day norm - maybe with a mechanical drive for backup.
Corky42 15th January 2013, 15:44 Quote
If you need more space than 512Gb for everyday use your doing something wrong :)
If your willing to spend thousands of pounds just to have a fast drive to store stuff on your mad.
RichCreedy 15th January 2013, 18:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
If you need more space than 512Gb for everyday use your doing something wrong :)
If your willing to spend thousands of pounds just to have a fast drive to store stuff on your mad.

you obviously don't have a steam library
Corky42 15th January 2013, 18:37 Quote
I do but are you really going play 20+ games all with in 5min, the time it takes to restore the game from your backups (that steam has built in)
As i said if you need more than 512Gb your doing something wrong.
TimB 15th January 2013, 21:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
I do but are you really going play 20+ games all with in 5min, the time it takes to restore the game from your backups (that steam has built in)
As i said if you need more than 512Gb your doing something wrong.

A backup is just a second copy of the game, it's the same size as having the game installed. So why not just have them installed to begin with.
Anfield 15th January 2013, 21:59 Quote
Well, personally I use a small ssd for the os and a couple games, a hdd for the rest of the games / software and a nas for media, but frankly the moment large ssds become affordable i'll certainly put everything on a ssd.
Of course this specific ssd most likely won't be cheap, but it should push down older ones in price, plus when the next gen comes this one will drop as well and so on, large ssds in the hands of average consumers are not a question of if, but when.
Guinevere 15th January 2013, 22:11 Quote
So it's an optimised dual 2.5" Raid 0 enclosure? Okay, I get it.

http://www.icydock.com/goods.php?id=121
Guinevere 15th January 2013, 22:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
As i said if you need more than 512Gb your doing something wrong.

You mean if I'm using more than 512GB I'm doing something differently to you?
Corky42 15th January 2013, 22:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
As i said if you need more than 512Gb your doing something wrong.

You mean if I'm using more than 512GB I'm doing something differently to you?

No i mean you have more money than brains, you cant get around the fact that (HDD) mechanical disks are cheaper per GB than (SSD) electronic disks.
Shirty 15th January 2013, 23:46 Quote
There's a hole in your argument there Corky. It's just an emotive, non factual statement which doesn't mean anything, and makes some fairly insulting assumptions about those who want or require a larger SSD.
dolphie 15th January 2013, 23:53 Quote
Ehh I have 2tb of work on my disks. And it's sound files that all have to be loaded together which is very demanding on the disk. So I currently have to store it all on mechanical disks and then move it to the SSD for compiling. It's a bit of a faff. If I could just have the whole lot on one disk that would be really great.
Corky42 16th January 2013, 00:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirty
There's a hole in your argument there Corky. It's just an emotive, non factual statement which doesn't mean anything, and makes some fairly insulting assumptions about those who want or require a larger SSD.

So you saying HDD are not cheaper per GB than SSD ?
Its a fact that you can now buy HDD as cheaply as 5p per GB, SSD are only now approaching the £1 per GB mark.
Its far from being a emotive, non factual statement which doesn't mean anything.

For your average home user it makes financial sense to only put what is used on a daily basis on a SSD and use a HDD for the rest.
Guinevere 16th January 2013, 02:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
No i mean you have more money than brains, you cant get around the fact that (HDD) mechanical disks are cheaper per GB than (SSD) electronic disks.

They are? You're telling me that HDD storage is cheaper per GB than an SSD? Wow. You learn something new every day, and there was me thinking your well formed argument was originally "If you need more space than 512Gb for everyday use your doing something wrong". Price per GB never came into it, but I guess that's was just me being thick.

But back on track...

I do access more than 512GB of data every day, so by applying your logic I've clearly got very little intelligence.

Really?

Damn. I'm really quite surprised at this breaking news. I'm welling up in fact.

This shocking news is actually very distressing as I've always relied on my brain up until now. At least knowing this does explain my lifelong inability to solve the Seven Bridges of Königsberg problem.

I will be sure to let everyone I meet that my 'Corky42 certified Brain' score is significantly more petite than I would otherwise have believed. But you've made the connection between the data I access daily and my intelligence and surely you must be speaking the truth otherwise you wouldn't have said it.

Thanks for letting me know. This is life altering stuff.

I will be sure to read all your future posts as if my very life depends on them. For maybe it will in some small way, as I now believe that you have many great lessons in life you could teach me. By hanging onto your every word I will endeavour to become a better and 'more brainy' person.

Just like you.

Would you be so generous as help me now? Seeing as you seem to know more about my daily usage patterns than I do (After all I'm such a thicky), would you be so kind as to enlighten me exactly which of my data I should not be using?

I'll do my best to follow your line of thought this time, but please don't use any complicated words. You must remember I'm a girl of very little brain.
Corky42 16th January 2013, 03:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
They are? You're telling me that HDD storage is cheaper per GB than an SSD? Wow. You learn something new every day, and there was me thinking your well formed argument was originally "If you need more space than 512Gb for everyday use your doing something wrong". Price per GB never came into it, but I guess that's was just me being thick.

If you want to call your self thick that's upto you, i would just say you have not read previous comments, specifically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
Sounds good but the price is going to be really high.

And thats not the only comment mentioning costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
I do access more than 512GB of data every day, so by applying your logic I've clearly got very little intelligence.

Again you seem to have leaped before you looked
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
For your average home user it makes financial sense to only put what is used on a daily basis on a SSD and use a HDD for the rest.
SexyHyde 16th January 2013, 03:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
No i mean you have more money than brains, you cant get around the fact that (HDD) mechanical disks are cheaper per GB than (SSD) electronic disks.

They are? You're telling me that HDD storage is cheaper per GB than an SSD? Wow. You learn something new every day, and there was me thinking your well formed argument was originally "If you need more space than 512Gb for everyday use your doing something wrong". Price per GB never came into it, but I guess that's was just me being thick.

But back on track...

I do access more than 512GB of data every day, so by applying your logic I've clearly got very little intelligence.

Really?

Damn. I'm really quite surprised at this breaking news. I'm welling up in fact.

This shocking news is actually very distressing as I've always relied on my brain up until now. At least knowing this does explain my lifelong inability to solve the Seven Bridges of Königsberg problem.

I will be sure to let everyone I meet that my 'Corky42 certified Brain' score is significantly more petite than I would otherwise have believed. But you've made the connection between the data I access daily and my intelligence and surely you must be speaking the truth otherwise you wouldn't have said it.

Thanks for letting me know. This is life altering stuff.

I will be sure to read all your future posts as if my very life depends on them. For maybe it will in some small way, as I now believe that you have many great lessons in life you could teach me. By hanging onto your every word I will endeavour to become a better and 'more brainy' person.

Just like you.

Would you be so generous as help me now? Seeing as you seem to know more about my daily usage patterns than I do (After all I'm such a thicky), would you be so kind as to enlighten me exactly which of my data I should not be using?

I'll do my best to follow your line of thought this time, but please don't use any complicated words. You must remember I'm a girl of very little brain.

Nice sarcasm..........here is mine....... nice post.

a 512GB drive would be suitable for over 90% of people for OS, programs and games. I've gone from two 64GB SSD in raid 0 to a single 64GB SSD OS & programs. The other 64GB SSD has Ubuntu & Steam. SataII 256GB or SataIII 128GB going in for a steam/games drive. I also have a 2nd gaming machine that only has a 64GB SSD.

My Steam collection is large but I only ever have 6-8 games installed and numerous large mech drives for backup & storage.

For MOST people, including most gamers, a 512Gb SSD would be fine. For the common computer user a 128GB SSD would be fine, of all the PC's I fix or upgrade, I've only ever seen a handful use over 100GB. I do know of people that could use a 512GB+ SSD and It would make sense for them to have one over a HDD. But then I have more fingers on one hand then know of people this applies. All the people I know of with over 256GB SSD, only do it for the e-peen.

Oh and just because you access over 512GB doesn't mean Corky is wrong, your usage is above normal (or your lying :O)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
If you need more space than 512Gb for everyday use your doing something wrong :)
If your willing to spend thousands of pounds just to have a fast drive to store stuff on your mad.
CowBlazed 16th January 2013, 04:16 Quote
But wait, 512GB SSD isn't near being affordable either. And 120GB is certainly not enough.
SexyHyde 16th January 2013, 05:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CowBlazed
But wait, 512GB SSD isn't near being affordable either. And 120GB is certainly not enough.

agree on the 512GB affordability. but 120GB not enough? it'll get your OS @ 20GB say the same again for programs and any regular games you play on the remaining 70-80GB. I found multiplayer games are fine on a HDD if anything i prefer it, as i always get impatient when i load up quick but have to sit there waiting for other people, this may change when everyone has an SSD but now you still have to wait. Single player games i am currently regularly playing always go on SSD as there is a benefit. I wouldn't be without an SSD but atm with the prices as they are and for what most people use, 120GB and a HDD for files and irregularly accessed stuff is a better option. and one that real world performance wise isn't that different from pure SSD.
Guinevere 16th January 2013, 10:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SexyHyde
Oh and just because you access over 512GB doesn't mean Corky is wrong, your usage is above normal (or your lying :O)

So the thread has gone from insulting my intelligence to insulting my integrity.

Nice.

So my usage is above normal - I never claimed I was a light user. I simply said "I'm using more than 512GB I'm doing something differently to you". It was this statement which triggered the first insult aimed directly at me.

Because the computer I use has a different usage to someone else's doesn't mean I'm doing something wrong or lacking in intelligence (Both claimed by Corky) and it doesn't mean I'm lying (An accusation by yourself).

You can turn Corky's statement into a 'Most people don't need more than 512GB' derivative if you like, but that's not how it was originally put.

Of course 'most' average users don't need more than 512GB, we're all in agreement on that. But just because someone doesn't fit into your personal category of 'most' doesn't justify insulting their intelligence or accusing them of lying.

That's it I'm done. From now on I'm ignoring you trolls.
Shirty 16th January 2013, 10:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
You can turn Corky's statement into a 'Most people don't need more than 512GB' derivative if you like, but that's not how it was originally put.

This.

Most home users don't need > 512GB SSDs != more money than brains if you do.
Corky42 16th January 2013, 14:23 Quote
Well actually
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
If you need more space than 512Gb for everyday use your doing something wrong :)
If your willing to spend thousands of pounds just to have a fast drive to store stuff on your mad.

And just in case it needs clarifying "you" would normally imply one person, not a company. :(
Anfield 16th January 2013, 15:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirty

Most home users don't need > 512GB SSDs != more money than brains if you do.

Plus need != want.

I have an I7 3770k, do I really need it? nah, what did I have before? a i7 920, did I need it? nah, could still use the Q6600 that I used before that, but guess what, I upgraded anyway. Same thing to some extent applies to SSDs, do I really need to move my entire flac collection to an ssd? nope, will I do so once ssds drop in price enough? sure why not.
Saivert 16th January 2013, 21:33 Quote
Well I don't know what happened to Corky today which warranted this aggression towards others.

If you need/want a lot of fast storage space you don't care what it costs. You purchase it anyways.
What is so hard to understand?
djzic 16th January 2013, 21:57 Quote
I would hardly say a consideration for the average user is necessary on this forum.

Do we need those flashy PCs? We could be an average consumer and buy a PS3, but we pursue performance.

Do we need mechanical keyboards that the average consumer doesn't? No, we simply prefer the speed.

If you can't understand we are in a niche then I fail to see why you are here. Many of us use storage at an exponential rate. I am an avid photographer and I store all my photos in RAW (a collection requiring 5TB). When I need to access these large images, it is very slow and inconvenient. Put aside your arrogance, it is not welcome, at least not from me.
blackworx 17th January 2013, 08:56 Quote
Sorry, it's been repeated so often in this thread that I can't not say it.

"your doing"
"your willing"
"your mad"
"your lying"

It's "YOU'RE"! :(

Also
Quote:
Originally Posted by djzic
I am an avid photographer and I store all my photos in RAW (a collection requiring 5TB). When I need to access these large images, it is very slow and inconvenient."

This. Having RAWs on spinning rust can slow Lightroom etc. to a crawl. Each individual's use case and performance requirements specifies their "need". If someone wants, can afford and actually uses such high capacity + high performance, how on earth can they be "doing something wrong"?
Harlequin 17th January 2013, 09:04 Quote
accessing a 5TB collection , hopefully you have it on a RAID array? likely raid 5?
Shirty 17th January 2013, 09:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackworx
Sorry, it's been repeated so often in this thread that I can't not say it.

"your doing"
"your willing"
"your mad"
"your lying"

It's "YOU'RE"! :(

Glad someone went there. I wanted to but every time grammars corrected on here some users throw there toys out the pram.

See what I did there?
Anfield 17th January 2013, 09:53 Quote
there = location which makes no sense in the context you used it because you where talking about objects and what the owner of those objects does with them and it had nothing to do with location, as opposed to the following example: look over there, they are throwing around toys again.
Gareth Halfacree 17th January 2013, 10:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anfield
there = location which makes no sense in the context you used it because you where talking about objects [...]
Were. Where is, ironically enough, also a locational term: "Where is the grammar nazi? The grammar nazi is there."

(Couldn't resist, sorry.)
Shirty 17th January 2013, 10:57 Quote
Lol. Least constructive comments page ever.
RichCreedy 17th January 2013, 20:29 Quote
I have 1 harddrive in my desktop pc, it's a 2TB drive, it is currently hosting 1.5TB of software and data. I prefer it this way, stuff I need to keep is backed up onto the server I have(yes it's a proper server)
shanky887614 17th January 2013, 22:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si_the-dude
AT LONG LAST! A 2TB 3.5" SSD is the stuff dreams are made of :D

Sounds good but the price is going to be really high.

As for the 3.5" SSD vs 2.5" I think I will stick to my 2.5" as they are easier to mount if you don't have any hdd cages.

talking about that.

i found with my antec 300 case i can screw a 2.5" samsung 840 pro on its side, meaning got a lot of air flow coming into the case flowing over it (can screw 2 down as only using 2 of the 4 screws)
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