PDA

View Full Version : Other World Computing Building Pricey 3.5" 2TB SSD for Desktop Workstations




MacRumors
Jan 11, 2013, 11:53 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/11/other-world-computing-building-pricey-3-5-2tb-ssd-for-desktop-workstations/)


Later this year, Other World Computing plans to release (http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/01/owc-is-readying-a-2tb-3-5-form-factor-workstation-ssd-for-2013/) a 3.5" SSD drive meant for tower-style PCs like the Mac Pro. The drive, called the "Mercury Viper", will allow OWC to build an SSD with capacities as large as 2TB, as well as transfer rates over 600MB/s over a SATA 3 connection.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/01/owcssd.jpg
Currently, OWC makes 2.5" SSD's (http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/SSD/OWC/) that can be installed in a laptop or desktop via a bracket, but the extra space in a 3.5" drive allow for four times the capacity as their current drives -- at a significant cost. A OWC spokesperson told Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/01/owc-is-readying-a-2tb-3-5-form-factor-workstation-ssd-for-2013/) that the drive was designed "performance and capacity, not price".
That's in stark contrast to where the rest of the market is headed, typically driving costs down and making the most of 2.5" and mSATA form factors used in notebooks and Ultrabooks. But workstation may care less about budget and more about getting work done. "We think the price will be right for the kind of user that spends $6,000 on a computer," Dahlke said. "And you can't get this kind of capacity anywhere else."Pricing and availability details are expected in March.

(Image courtesy Ars Technica/Chris Foresman (http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/01/owc-is-readying-a-2tb-3-5-form-factor-workstation-ssd-for-2013/))

Article Link: Other World Computing Building Pricey 3.5" 2TB SSD for Desktop Workstations (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/11/other-world-computing-building-pricey-3-5-2tb-ssd-for-desktop-workstations/)



dlastmango
Jan 11, 2013, 11:55 AM
Dang! I want.. But probably can't afford

djepsilon
Jan 11, 2013, 12:07 PM
Now if only there was a new MacPro to put said drive into!

Dwalls90
Jan 11, 2013, 12:07 PM
It's essentially 4x512Gb SSDs... No way this is cheaper than $2,000, I'd say even closer to $3,000

tarasis
Jan 11, 2013, 12:07 PM
Dang! I want.. But probably can't afford

Likewise. That would be perfect but likely well outside my budget

Mr. Retrofire
Jan 11, 2013, 12:10 PM
≈ 1 TB for < 600 US$:
http://investors.micron.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=732650

iRCL
Jan 11, 2013, 12:25 PM
≈ 1 TB for < 600 US$:
http://investors.micron.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=732650

Now THAT, is SICK. So awesome

needfx
Jan 11, 2013, 12:26 PM
thats not an attractive color

nsayer
Jan 11, 2013, 12:34 PM
I've currently got a 5Big Network 2 configured for RAID 6. I did this because I wanted to not have to worry about individual or even two drive failures.

But the idea of large SSD modules seems wrong-headed to me.

Building large capacity rotating drives makes sense because a rather large fraction of the cost of the device is the storage infrastructure rather than the storage medium itself.

Flash storage turns that on its head. The vast majority of the cost is the storage medium itself.

What I want to see is a NAS that looks a bit like the inside of HAL-9000 - a large number of relatively small flash modules, each easily field-replaceable.

In order to make this a reality, what I think is necessary is a new, cheap, simple interface standard for flash memory modules. Groups of these modules could be grouped together behind a single SATA controller for an eSATA flash "JBOD" style enclosure, or a larger number of them could be RAIDed for a NAS.

All Taken
Jan 11, 2013, 12:37 PM
The just announced Micron/Crucial M500 at 450 a TB... That's about 900 for 2TB of space, granted it's not on one SSD but what OWC are doing here is (and I use the word as heavily as possible) obscene.

Yvan256
Jan 11, 2013, 12:41 PM
What I want to see is a NAS that looks a bit like the inside of HAL-9000 - a large number of relatively small flash modules, each easily field-replaceable.

That would also be perfect to increase the storage capacity incrementally by buying cheaper and smaller modules and being able to replace the smaller/slowest ones later, one by one. More people would be able to afford this setup, starting with a 60GB module, then buying another 20GB later, etc.

iRCL
Jan 11, 2013, 12:48 PM
That would also be perfect to increase the storage capacity incrementally by buying cheaper and smaller modules and being able to replace the smaller/slowest ones later, one by one. More people would be able to afford this setup, starting with a 60GB module, then buying another 20GB later, etc.

You mean.. RAID...

spoonie1972
Jan 11, 2013, 12:58 PM
that appears to be in a standard mac pro drive tray.

so it's connecting via sata2?

pgiguere1
Jan 11, 2013, 01:14 PM
In somewhat related news, Crucial just announced they will release a 960GB SSD for under $600.

While most of the new lineup they announced has a 2.5" form factor, the M500 model (960GB) is said to have a "M.2" form factor, which resembles the blades found in the rMBP/MBAs.

http://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/ngff.jpg?w=2400&h=

Not sure it will be compatible, but it gives hope for large capacity blade SSD upgrades being more affordable in the foreseeable future.

Article: http://techreport.com/news/24182/micron-and-crucial-introduce-next-gen-m500-ssd

paulrbeers
Jan 11, 2013, 01:17 PM
that appears to be in a standard mac pro drive tray.

so it's connecting via sata2?

No, it has standard 3.5" drive mounts. Just like an Icy Dock, or any other 3.5" Plastic Case. Further, it isn't like it will ONLY work with Macs (just because it comes from OWC) and would have been silly to only make it SATA2. Making it SATA3 means it will be backwards compatible with SATA2. If apple comes out with a new Mac Pro (of some type) or if a PC user (hackintosh maybe?) wants to use one of these, they can at full SATA3 speeds.

spoonie1972
Jan 11, 2013, 01:21 PM
nono, i mean it's screwed into a mac pro drive-tray.

if this is OWC based, shouldn't they have a PCIe stand-off so it can connect to something fast(er) like their Accelsior range?

Intarweb
Jan 11, 2013, 01:22 PM
I just ordered an SSD for my Mac Pro 1,1 from them.

ppdix
Jan 11, 2013, 01:35 PM
At $1500 for 1TB , it is not cheap but it is worth it. All I need is a PCI-e. i get speeds of over 800MB/s and I can still use my 6 additional Hard Drives in my Mac Pro... :cool:
The 2010 Mac Pro is limited to a 3G Bus Connection. Even if you plug in a 6G SSD, it will be clocked down to half...
PCI gives you full throughput...
I couldn't be happier :)

All Taken
Jan 11, 2013, 02:23 PM
In somewhat related news, Crucial just announced they will release a 960GB SSD for under $600.

While most of the new lineup they announced has a 2.5" form factor, the M500 model (960GB) is said to have a "M.2" form factor, which resembles the blades found in the rMBP/MBAs.

Image (http://9to5mac.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/ngff.jpg?w=2400&h=)

Not sure it will be compatible, but it gives hope for large capacity blade SSD upgrades being more affordable in the foreseeable future.

Article: http://techreport.com/news/24182/micron-and-crucial-introduce-next-gen-m500-ssd

Are you sure you didn't switch the size and capacity? I recall reading that the M500 will be available in M2 variants in all BUT the 960GB variety.

----------

It actually only gives you hope that larger capacity blade style SSD's will be larger in capacity as it's a proprietary format used by Apple i.e Apple controls the tech and thus the pricing does not need to be competitive. See OWC for an example of this.

Rocketman
Jan 11, 2013, 03:43 PM
Since Fusion drive is a software controller for existing physical SSD and HD drives, this might be the flash portion for a large scale NAS system for hi-K media creation. Real time, multi-channel.

You might be able to edit a RED 24K high frame rate video on that.

neroroxxx
Jan 11, 2013, 04:23 PM
They already have a 960GB SSD for $1,119.00 so im assuming this will double the price at the least.

Sad that these drives are so expensive but its fun to think that in 5 years or so these will be a lot cheaper...

righteye
Jan 11, 2013, 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yvan256
That would also be perfect to increase the storage capacity incrementally by buying cheaper and smaller modules and being able to replace the smaller/slowest ones later, one by one. More people would be able to afford this setup, starting with a 60GB module, then buying another 20GB later, etc.

Quote:
iRCL You mean.. RAID...

Iam not sure he does, he might be referring to something like the Acelsior PCIe SSD blades being increased in capacity which is something that OWC did advertise as being a possibility and i E-mailed them about this, the long and short of it is that is so close in price to a new PCIe card that its probably just better to buy a new one of a greater capacity (and no warranty hassles)
It would be good to be able to add another 50-100 Gb at a time as one can afford it.

velocityg4
Jan 11, 2013, 04:52 PM
I don't get them using SATA III. They should have made it a PCIe 2.0 x4 or PCIe 1.0 x8 card like some other manufacturers. So that you could get speeds greater than 1GB/s. As others do for large premium SSD.

Unlike others theirs would be Mac bootable.

b0fh
Jan 11, 2013, 06:49 PM
What I want to see is a NAS that looks a bit like the inside of HAL-9000 - a large number of relatively small flash modules, each easily field-replaceable.

In order to make this a reality, what I think is necessary is a new, cheap, simple interface standard for flash memory modules. Groups of these modules could be grouped together behind a single SATA controller for an eSATA flash "JBOD" style enclosure, or a larger number of them could be RAIDed for a NAS.

Uh, isn't that module called a "hard drive"...?!

bretm
Jan 11, 2013, 07:21 PM
I don't get them using SATA III. They should have made it a PCIe 2.0 x4 or PCIe 1.0 x8 card like some other manufacturers. So that you could get speeds greater than 1GB/s. As others do for large premium SSD.

Unlike others theirs would be Mac bootable.

Because it goes into desktops with a sata III connection?

velocityg4
Jan 11, 2013, 07:54 PM
Because it goes into desktops with a sata III connection?
Given the quote of a $6000 computer. There target audience is the Mac Pro owner. So why not make it more compelling?

Prodo123
Jan 11, 2013, 11:08 PM
thats not an attractive color

If you're that one person in the world who uses a workstation with his head stuck in the enclosure instead of looking at the screen, yes

I've always wondered why there was no 3.5" SSD until now. More space would mean more room for organized circuits and heat dispersion. It seemed self-explanatory that higher-voltage high-performance and capacity SSDs would be possible in the traditional desktop drive format, yet no one made one until now!

Mr. Retrofire
Jan 12, 2013, 12:37 AM
If you're that one person in the world who uses a workstation with his head stuck in the enclosure instead of looking at the screen, yes
That is my normal working position. ;-)

Marx55
Jan 12, 2013, 03:37 AM
Even better: external with Thunderbolt (2 for daisy-chain) and USB 3 to boot Mac. That is full SSD for the ultimate performance and high price.

But also as hybrid Fusion Drive external Mac booting ones using the highest possible capacities for Desktop and Mobile HD.

needfx
Jan 12, 2013, 05:24 AM
If you're that one person in the world who uses a workstation with his head stuck in the enclosure instead of looking at the screen, yes



...then a conversation between you and Steve Jobs would have been futile

Mr. Retrofire
Jan 12, 2013, 05:43 AM
...then a conversation between you and Steve Jobs would have been futile
Conversations with dead people are always futile.

needfx
Jan 12, 2013, 05:53 AM
Conversations with dead people are always futile.

notice the use of "would have been" as opposed to "would be"

:D

designs216
Jan 12, 2013, 07:04 AM
The price is scary but you've got to admit it's pretty cool. Let the early adopters take the hit for now, I'll stick with my fast RAID.

HERO XXL
Jan 12, 2013, 07:28 AM
1.) You guys are all speaking some sort of alien language to me.
2.) I don't know what an SSD does--I know what it stands for, but that's about it.
3.) What I DO know is that I sent my Mac Mini to OWC a couple of years ago. They gutted it, shoved some other stuff in, added a bunch of other bells & whistles and sent it back. I can't tell you what I CAN'T do with this monster. They've made me a customer for LIFE.

righteye
Jan 12, 2013, 07:31 AM
thats not an attractive color

OWC Blue, luckily it goes inside the computer!:) looks like a Lego Brick minus the pimples.
one could always use a Newertech voyager and have it on display, at least no one will nick it!
Probably looks better in the flesh but if its made of aluminium it would have been better the natural colour.

Lahmy88
Jan 12, 2013, 11:05 AM
OWC are total champs ;)

hexor
Jan 12, 2013, 11:16 AM
What I want to see is a NAS that looks a bit like the inside of HAL-9000 - a large number of relatively small flash modules, each easily field-replaceable.


And this would have matched up well with ZFS. Is apple still doing anything to replace the file system with ZFS or a similar? The rumor was they abandoned it a couple years ago due to licensing issues.

macingman
Jan 12, 2013, 11:39 AM
thats not an attractive color

It's inside a computer i.e. not visible.

phrehdd
Jan 12, 2013, 11:44 AM
If people want this drive let them have it.

I was far more interested in the PCI cards that hosted 2-4 2.5" drives. Whether the card was smart or required software RAID.

I think a decent PCI drive host card that can be seated in an "adapter" that can use USB 3 and Tbolt would be a neat trick. There already are some PCI cards that can host 2.5" drives and its a shame it hasn't advance much further other than still be expensive.

kingtj
Jan 12, 2013, 01:56 PM
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9235277/Micron_unveils_its_first_1TB_SSD_for_under_600


It's essentially 4x512Gb SSDs... No way this is cheaper than $2,000, I'd say even closer to $3,000

Dwalls90
Jan 12, 2013, 02:43 PM
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9235277/Micron_unveils_its_first_1TB_SSD_for_under_600

Okay.

But this is at least two of those. If it's not one solid "brick" of memory, then it's going to have a controller, plus the chassis and OWC's name on it ...

I still don't think you're looking at anything under $1,500.

And is that other 1TB SSD shipping yet?

needfx
Jan 12, 2013, 04:00 PM
It's inside a computer i.e. not visible.

true, doesn't mean I have to like it though, does it?

All Taken
Jan 12, 2013, 04:48 PM
true, doesn't mean I have to like it though, does it?

Given your location I'd say it's imperative that you do like it.

ChrisA
Jan 12, 2013, 07:32 PM
The entire idea of places a large FLAS storage ion the end of a SATA interface is just a "stop gap" measure. From a design stand point it is a silly waste of expensive FLASH/

The best way is to put the FLASH directly on the PCIe bus with no SATA. But then you can't sell it to people with existing Mac Pros. The non-optimal design s just for marketing to owners of existing computers

The best way to go is to write a block storage driver for FLASH that is directly attached to the bus. It might look and work more like a high end video card and have higher bandwidth then a disk interface would allow.

Notice how Apple is NOT using flash that is pushed into the form factor of a disk. You only need to do that if selling into the after market. The disk-like form factor only adds weight, bulk and cost.

To those who wantto use this in a NAS: "What's the point?" the NAS' speed in limited by the Ethernet cable which for many of use in "only" 1000 bits per second. You can already build a NAS that hits this limit using just low speed disk drives.

----------

...
What I want to see is a NAS that looks a bit like the inside of HAL-9000 - a large number of relatively small flash modules, each easily field-replaceable.

There is no point in building a fast NAS with FLASH, not until your install 10G ethernet to the desktop and even with 10G you can still do that with disks if you buy enough of them. Flash does make a nice cache. It can hold pending writes or read aheads

phrehdd
Jan 12, 2013, 08:03 PM
The entire idea of places a large FLAS storage ion the end of a SATA interface is just a "stop gap" measure. From a design stand point it is a silly waste of expensive FLASH/

The best way is to put the FLASH directly on the PCIe bus with no SATA. But then you can't sell it to people with existing Mac Pros. The non-optimal design s just for marketing to owners of existing computers

The best way to go is to write a block storage driver for FLASH that is directly attached to the bus. It might look and work more like a high end video card and have higher bandwidth then a disk interface would allow.

Notice how Apple is NOT using flash that is pushed into the form factor of a disk. You only need to do that if selling into the after market. The disk-like form factor only adds weight, bulk and cost.

To those who wantto use this in a NAS: "What's the point?" the NAS' speed in limited by the Ethernet cable which for many of use in "only" 1000 bits per second. You can already build a NAS that hits this limit using just low speed disk drives.

----------



There is no point in building a fast NAS with FLASH, not until your install 10G ethernet to the desktop and even with 10G you can still do that with disks if you buy enough of them. Flash does make a nice cache. It can hold pending writes or read aheads

Chris, a pci-e card does make sense whether it is directly on the card or as I stated above, a card that hosts 2-4 2.5" drives (perhaps another interface than SATA). Either the card goes into a Mac Pro or an external case to TBOLT. I find that the entire TBOLT exercise has been a tremendous waste of people's monies as it really is not accessible to the masses at the current pricing. In some sense, Apple did screw its fan base by pushing TBOLT before USB 3 and now we see a new USB 3 that is reasonably faster than the present incarnation. I just hope they are less costly than TBOLT and hopefully beat SATA out.

jdiamond
Jan 12, 2013, 09:10 PM
≈ 1 TB for < 600 US$:
http://investors.micron.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=732650

Sure hope it does RAID 0 for increased speed - with 4 drives, we're at 2 GB/sec !!!

blackhand1001
Jan 12, 2013, 09:13 PM
Chris, a pci-e card does make sense whether it is directly on the card or as I stated above, a card that hosts 2-4 2.5" drives (perhaps another interface than SATA). Either the card goes into a Mac Pro or an external case to TBOLT. I find that the entire TBOLT exercise has been a tremendous waste of people's monies as it really is not accessible to the masses at the current pricing. In some sense, Apple did screw its fan base by pushing TBOLT before USB 3 and now we see a new USB 3 that is reasonably faster than the present incarnation. I just hope they are less costly than TBOLT and hopefully beat SATA out.

Neither thunderbolt nor usb3.0 gives better performance than sata in real world use. The drives inside these enclosures are almost always sata based so it has to have the signal converted anyways. SATA and eSATA drives give much better real world performance and have the added benefit of having no limitations on being use for boot drives and needing special drivers.

fiddlestyx
Jan 12, 2013, 09:46 PM
Sounds pretty awesome but man that would probably hurt the wallet!

Mr. Retrofire
Jan 12, 2013, 11:29 PM
Sure hope it does RAID 0 for increased speed - with 4 drives, we're at 2 GB/sec !!!
Dubbed the "Mercury Viper," the bright blue, aluminum-clad SSDs are designed to fit the larger 3.5-inch drive bays found in most tower-style PCs. The extra volume allows OWC to pack more high-capacity NAND chips on a single "board," starting at 240GB and going all the way up to 2TB. OWC also promises 600MB/s transfer rates from the SandForce-powered drives over an SATA 3 connection.
SATA 3 has a 6 GBit/s transfer rate, if the cable supports this speed. That means
((6 GBit/s / 8) / 100) * 80 = 600000000 Byte/s = 600 MByte/s

8 = Bits in one Byte
SATA uses 8/10 bit encoding = 8 bits data in a 10 bit symbol.

Others here @macrumors tested 1 TB (software) RAID 0 configurations (2x512 GB Samsung 830 or 840 Pro, IIRC) and got transfer rates of 1 GByte/s. I'm sure the next generation of Samsung SSDs (850 Pro?) supports speeds higher than SATA 3, which means you need either
a) a new computer, which supports the new interface, or
b) a card for your computer, which supports the new interface.

DogHouseDub
Jan 12, 2013, 11:40 PM
I'm using one of the OWC Accelsior PCI-e drives in my Mac Pro - crazy fast - gotta love a company like OWC pushing things forward for Mac users. The Viper will be pricey based on both its capacity and the small production numbers. Definitely fits the bill for folks pushing maxed out desktop systems.

macingman
Jan 13, 2013, 01:37 AM
true, doesn't mean I have to like it though, does it?
I didn't say you had to like it. Just said the colour doesn't really mean much seeing it's inside the computer.

needfx
Jan 13, 2013, 05:22 AM
Given your location I'd say it's imperative that you do like it.

I LOLed!! While I changed it 3 days ago, I couldn't really find anything expressive enough

All Taken
Jan 13, 2013, 08:04 AM
I LOLed!! While I changed it 3 days ago, I couldn't really find anything expressive enough

;)

qamaro
Jan 13, 2013, 03:16 PM
It's essentially 4x512Gb SSDs... No way this is cheaper than $2,000, I'd say even closer to $3,000

Well hopefully the if Crucial follows through with their announcement to release their 980GB SSD (M500) at around $600, would force the price on the OWC one to come down. As 2 x M500 would be $1200 - $1400 verses an OWC 2TB est. at that 2K - 3K range. In fact you could get the OWC multi-mount bracket allows for 2 SSD's in the 3.5" bay.

Dwalls90
Jan 13, 2013, 03:23 PM
Well hopefully the if Crucial follows through with their announcement to release their 980GB SSD (M500) at around $600, would force the price on the OWC one to come down. As 2 x M500 would be $1200 - $1400 verses an OWC 2TB est. at that 2K - 3K range. In fact you could get the OWC multi-mount bracket allows for 2 SSD's in the 3.5" bay.

To add to what I said before, OWC never really plays the price comparison game.

Look at their existing SSD line, they are as expensive if not more expensive than what's out there.

charlieegan3
Jan 13, 2013, 03:40 PM
thats not an attractive color

I thought the opposite. Seems colors are subjective...

el-John-o
Jan 13, 2013, 04:17 PM
If you're that one person in the world who uses a workstation with his head stuck in the enclosure instead of looking at the screen, yes

I've always wondered why there was no 3.5" SSD until now. More space would mean more room for organized circuits and heat dispersion. It seemed self-explanatory that higher-voltage high-performance and capacity SSDs would be possible in the traditional desktop drive format, yet no one made one until now!

I think the main reason is marketability. Even now SSDs don't outsell spinning drives, and a 2.5" equivalent size drive fits BOTH. So they need only engineer and maintain one product.

----------

To add to what I said before, OWC never really plays the price comparison game.

Look at their existing SSD line, they are as expensive if not more expensive than what's out there.

Absolutely. OWC's pricing is outrageous with seemingly no particular advantages or ways in which their products are unique and worth the price premium.

They are playing (or preying) on two things. One; unfamiliar apple users purchasing their products under an understanding that the competition is not compatible with their computers (thus they only need to compete with apples also outrageous upgrade prices). And two; components for which there is no competition, like rMBP SSD blades.

righteye
Jan 13, 2013, 05:08 PM
inaccurate comment, withdrawn

anthony11
Jan 13, 2013, 06:53 PM
Building large capacity rotating drives makes sense because a rather large fraction of the cost of the device is the storage infrastructure rather than the storage medium itself.
Flash storage turns that on its head. The vast majority of the cost is the storage medium itself.
... and then you go on to ask for expensive storage infrastructure:
What I want to see is a NAS that looks a bit like the inside of HAL-9000 - a large number of relatively small flash modules, each easily field-replaceable.
SAS/SATA expanders can do that sort of thing, but the chassis/backplane for the above would be neither compact nor inexpensive, and a capable RAID HBA / embedded controller would be needed.
In order to make this a reality, what I think is necessary is a new, cheap, simple interface standard for flash memory modules.
I should think SATA is cheap enough, but the chassis and backplane are going to cost regardless of the interface standard.
Groups of these modules could be grouped together behind a single SATA controller for an eSATA flash "JBOD" style enclosure, or a larger number of them could be RAIDed
Just like HBA's have done for years
for a NAS.
Why bring NAS into it? :confused: That's only going to slow it down, might as well stick with spinning rust.

alternateroute
Jan 13, 2013, 10:48 PM
What I want to see is a NAS that looks a bit like the inside of HAL-9000
I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that.

Oracle1729
Jan 14, 2013, 07:00 AM
I've always wondered why there was no 3.5" SSD until now. More space would mean more room for organized circuits and heat dispersion.

Because for a desktop, sticking an SSD in a 3.5" HDD size enclosure is the worst idea of 2013.

It's a desktop. Build a PCI-E card that will make the sata-3 connection look like a very tight bottle neck and leaving the chips outside an enclosure will improve heat dispersion. It's been available as long as the 2.5" enclosure versions. You know, sort of like this product: http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-revodrive-3-x2-pci-express-ssd.html

JHankwitz
Jan 14, 2013, 08:25 AM
thats not an attractive color

Who cares? It gets mounted inside where no one can see it, but is very visible to service people that open the case. Looks like a great decision.

----------

Question is, how fast is it compared to other SSDs? I know there's a considerable difference in the speed of memory cards I can get for my camera. Is there this great a difference in SSDs?

All Taken
Jan 14, 2013, 12:19 PM
Who cares? It gets mounted inside where no one can see it, but is very visible to service people that open the case. Looks like a great decision.

----------

Question is, how fast is it compared to other SSDs? I know there's a considerable difference in the speed of memory cards I can get for my camera. Is there this great a difference in SSDs?

I think you need to read a little about SSD's to get an answer that gives your question justice. In short it's a vast answer given IOPS, file size, controller version etc etc. Now if you had a SSD purely for loading the OS anything above 300MB/s is generally considered excessive as you won't notice a performance increase. Accessing other media or even using it as a swap disk would be an important factor in your decision regarding speed.

----------

Well hopefully the if Crucial follows through with their announcement to release their 980GB SSD (M500) at around $600, would force the price on the OWC one to come down. As 2 x M500 would be $1200 - $1400 verses an OWC 2TB est. at that 2K - 3K range. In fact you could get the OWC multi-mount bracket allows for 2 SSD's in the 3.5" bay.

OWC sell overpriced components, a cheaper per GB SSD from another firm will not change this strategy. They rely on the ignorance of users.

Bubba Satori
Jan 14, 2013, 02:46 PM
thats not an attractive color

It also needs to be thinner, lighter and have a annoying glossy surface. :cool:

Prodo123
Jan 14, 2013, 04:08 PM
Because for a desktop, sticking an SSD in a 3.5" HDD size enclosure is the worst idea of 2013.

It's a desktop. Build a PCI-E card that will make the sata-3 connection look like a very tight bottle neck and leaving the chips outside an enclosure will improve heat dispersion. It's been available as long as the 2.5" enclosure versions. You know, sort of like this product: http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-revodrive-3-x2-pci-express-ssd.html

At that price wouldn't a second GPU be way more beneficial than a PCIe SSD?

MacDav
Jan 14, 2013, 10:27 PM
≈ 1 TB for < 600 US$:
http://investors.micron.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=732650

Now your talking'. Pop 2 of those in my MacPro and I'm good to go. :)

Oracle1729
Jan 14, 2013, 10:39 PM
At that price wouldn't a second GPU be way more beneficial than a PCIe SSD?

That really depends what you're doing. And I'm sure when you're at these price points anyway you're doing commercial work and buying both the graphics card and SSD might be worthwhile.

uhmorphous
Jan 14, 2013, 10:44 PM
I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that.

Funniest reply in thread. I can even hear the voice.

Prodo123
Jan 15, 2013, 02:34 AM
That really depends what you're doing. And I'm sure when you're at these price points anyway you're doing commercial work and buying both the graphics card and SSD might be worthwhile.

True, but then you'd be limited by the number of PCIe slots available on the motherboard and how thick the GPU is x)

needfx
Jan 15, 2013, 07:24 AM
I thought the opposite. Seems colors are subjective...

1 (aka True)

It also needs to be thinner, lighter and have a annoying glossy surface. :cool:

I can't see it blending :D

starflyer
Jan 15, 2013, 12:19 PM
I would rather have this:

http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/SSD/PCIe/OWC/Mercury_Accelsior/RAID

charlieegan3
Jan 15, 2013, 01:39 PM
1 (aka True)

That took way too long for me to work out! :D CS student too! :(

needfx
Jan 15, 2013, 02:00 PM
That took way too long for me to work out! :D CS student too! :(

Challenged Science student? LOL

Emanuel1
Jan 15, 2013, 11:36 PM
Seems to come out direct from Tony Stark Co.

InuNacho
Jan 16, 2013, 12:00 AM
If OWC is gonna make 3.5 SSDs why can't they make a 3.5 Hybrid-drive like the Momentus XT? I'd be far more interested in a desktop version of the XT instead of an expensive SSD.

AppliedMicro
Jan 17, 2013, 10:47 AM
If OWC is gonna make 3.5 SSDs why can't they make a 3.5 Hybrid-drive like the Momentus XT?
The point about these 2TB is, as OWC says: "performance and capacity" - uncompromisingly. These drives are made for people who need the performance. And I'm sure many of the targeted audience will count on consistent performance. It's a premium product for a specific audience, to be put in High-End machines, where price is secondary.

Hybrid drives on the other hand aren't "uncompromisingly fast" - they aren't faster than conventional hard drives in Reads once you hit the "wrong" sectors on the drive. And for demanding users/uses, many Writes won't be either. Hybrid drives don't achieve consistent performance, so they are no substitute for SSDs.

Also, keep in mind that hybrid aren't only inherently more complex from a design standpoint (you'd not only have to get the SSD part right but also the communication and caching between SSD and conventional drive), they should also be less manufacturers being able to produce them. Conventional hard drives have to be assembled in a cleanroom environment (and I doubt you can get them "barebones"), while SSD should be easier to assemble.

For companies, it's not only much easier to get into the SSD business than the one for conventional HD - the former is a burgeoning market while the latter is shrinking.

Bottom line: Hybrid drives give up the benefits of proper SSD (uncompromising and consistent performance), are more difficult to design, test and manufacture (especially companies that don't already make HD), the targeted audience is small (esp. in the Apple world, it'd only fit in Mac Pro and iMac 27", nothing else) and the advantage compared to existing 2.5" hybrid drives is only a relative one (no way near as significant as to SSD).


But why don't go and purchase an SSD and create your own Fusion Drive with Disk Utility? There are instructions on how to do it...

HelveticaRoman
Jan 18, 2013, 03:01 AM
All we need now is something from Apple (that's less than three years old) to put it in.

el-John-o
Jan 18, 2013, 03:16 AM
The point about these 2TB is, as OWC says: "performance and capacity" - uncompromisingly. These drives are made for people who need the performance. And I'm sure many of the targeted audience will count on consistent performance. It's a premium product for a specific audience, to be put in High-End machines, where price is secondary.

Hybrid drives on the other hand aren't "uncompromisingly fast" - they aren't faster than conventional hard drives in Reads once you hit the "wrong" sectors on the drive. And for demanding users/uses, many Writes won't be either. Hybrid drives don't achieve consistent performance, so they are no substitute for SSDs.

Also, keep in mind that hybrid aren't only inherently more complex from a design standpoint (you'd not only have to get the SSD part right but also the communication and caching between SSD and conventional drive), they should also be less manufacturers being able to produce them. Conventional hard drives have to be assembled in a cleanroom environment (and I doubt you can get them "barebones"), while SSD should be easier to assemble.

For companies, it's not only much easier to get into the SSD business than the one for conventional HD - the former is a burgeoning market while the latter is shrinking.

Bottom line: Hybrid drives give up the benefits of proper SSD (uncompromising and consistent performance), are more difficult to design, test and manufacture (especially companies that don't already make HD), the targeted audience is small (esp. in the Apple world, it'd only fit in Mac Pro and iMac 27", nothing else) and the advantage compared to existing 2.5" hybrid drives is only a relative one (no way near as significant as to SSD).


But why don't go and purchase an SSD and create your own Fusion Drive with Disk Utility? There are instructions on how to do it...

Exactly. This is NOT a consumer product. MacRumors readers tend to forget that when they look at a lot of Apple/Third party Apple products, like Mac Pro's with 12 cores and a lot of RAM for example. These are for very high end niche markets that need a LOT of performance and have the budget to pay for it.

This is an insane-performance-is-necessary product. Avatar was rendered on a farm of computers with something like 108TB of RAM, and who knows what sort of CPU and GPU performance. That is a perfect example of an unlimited budget, I-don't-care-what-it-is-as-long-as-it's-the-fastest scenario. That same company that does rendering for those high end animated movies, would probably buy up a bunch of these drives. Lots of pro videographers are moving to 4k and even 8k video, even though the final product is 1080p (gives them a lot of flexibility). Those files aren't small. I can really see a pro video customer using a SET of these 2TB drives in their Mac Pro for working with huge video files in FCP, etc. Many of them are already using an array of 2.5" SSD's, so this would allow them to pack in even MORE fast storage.



All we need now is something from Apple (that's less than three years old) to put it in.

Zing.

Supposed to make an announcement this year on the Mac Pro aren't they?

You know there was a time the 'Mac Pro' (whether it was called that, or a PowerMac, etc.) was the flagship Macintosh by which all other workstations were judged. I really hope it does't go the way of the Xserve. True, with improved laptop performance many many professionals are now using MacBook Pro's instead of desktop computers, but there are still QUITE a few who need desktop level performance.

tootalltech
Jan 21, 2013, 06:55 AM
Great leaps forward for Desktop users. This way we will no longer have to by those pesky little coversion trays! I do think the price for SSD hd are ridiculous. Its cheaper for me to get a 65' LED tv than a few SSD hd! Give it some time and it will go away!