Samsung Announces Fast 256GB Solid State Drive (SSD)

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Samsung announced (http://www.samsung.com/us/news/newsRead.do?news_seq=8580&page=11&news_group=&rdoPeriod=ALL&from_dt=&to_dt=&news_type=&news_ctgry=&search_keyword=) that they will begin delivering a 256GB solid state drive (SSD) later this year. The drive uses a standard SATA II interface, making it compatible with existing Macs. Besides becoming the largest Solid State Drive on the market, Samsung promises remarkable read and write performance: With a sequential read speed of 200 megabytes per second (MB/s) and sequential write speed of 160MB/s, Samsung’s MLC-based 2.5-inch 256GB SSD is about 2.4 times faster than a typical HDD. The drive will begin sampling in September, with mass production "by year end". Samsung will deliver the drive in 2.5" and 1.8" versions, though we are uncertain if the 1.8" version will be thin enough (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/30/maximum-macbook-air-drive-80gb-for-now/) to fit in the MacBook Air.

Apple first introduced the use of a SSD in their products with the $999 SSD upgrade for MacBook Air. The price to performance benefit of the current SSDs has been somewhat disappointing, though there does appear to be a small battery life advantage (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/02/14/macbook-air-ssd-vs-hdd-battery-life-revisted/). As the economics of solid state drives continue to improve, we are likely to see them being introduced into future Apple laptops. Unfortunately, Samsung has not yet announced the pricing of their 256GB drive, which will likely remain a very expensive option.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/05/27/samsung-announces-fast-256gb-solid-state-drive-ssd/)

[SkippyThorson]

Amen. Way to speed up the Air. More excuse to get one! :)

[lil' brudder]

man, this is really exciting with all the advantages we can have from large SSDs. I bet it will be super expensive though, unfortunately. (I might buy it anyway :D)

[MacinDoc]

At the rate that the capacity of SSDs is increasing, HDs could go the way of the floppy within 5 years...

[motulist]

iPod, Touch and iPhone are just dying for this technology to reach the 1 inch storage drive form factor that they use! (iirc)

[tuneman07]

Now the air will be really cool and worth the money- oh wait no it wont. I bet some air lovers out there even think this will boost sales.

[DoFoT9]

YYAAAAYYYY
this is an awsome thing, when they come out i might put on in my CD MBP :) give me awsome battery life.

[ntrigue]

At the rate that the capacity of SSDs is increasing, HDs could go the way of the floppy within 5 years...

Realistic analogy.

[DMann]

man, this is really exciting with all the advantages we can have from large SSDs. I bet it will be super expensive though, unfortunately. (I might buy it anyway :D)

Expensive as it may be, this will bring the price of the 64G SSD way down.

[mhnajjar]

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=489055 :cool:

[twoodcc]

glad to see this. i know it will be very expensive, but it will make the 64 gb drive cheaper. hopefully this will make it into the air at macworld

[MacTheSpoon]

If it's faster, does that mean it will need to draw more power than the current 64GB SSD to get the extra speed?

[winterspan]

YYAAAAYYYY
this is an awsome thing, when they come out i might put on in my CD MBP :) give me awsome battery life.

Amen. Way to speed up the Air. More excuse to get one! :)

....I bet it will be super expensive though, unfortunately. (I might buy it anyway :D)

HAHA! Keep dreaming you guys.. This thing is going to easily cost over $5,000...

[motulist]

HAHA! Keep dreaming you guys.. This thing is going to easily cost over $5,000...

What makes you think that? 64 GB SSD in the MBA costs $1000, and 64 * 4 = 256, and $1000 * 4 = $4000. Even if you add on an extra premium for it being a new technology making it cost more per megabyte (which is not the direction cost per megabyte usually goes) then it still doesn't sound like there's any reason fo it to cost over $5000.

[arn]

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=489055 :cool:

The only problem with that thread is they assume it can be used in the MBA. It may not for two possible reasons

- PATA interface on MBA
- may not be thin enough (no thickness has been given on the 1.8" drive)

arn

[Santabean2000]

HAHA! Keep dreaming you guys.. This thing is going to easily cost over $5,000...

This year... $3000 next year, and will be a notebook standard within 5 years.

Dream on? Giddy Up!

:D:apple:

[deputylove8]

Okay kewl! I've just developed a way for me to buy this thing...

1) Sell my house and
2) Work for the next 2910 years and save 95% of my savings and
3) Find the cure for cancer and sell off the patent to the highest bidder

....yeah! I can finally make my downpayment:D

[MacinJosh]

I have been an avid advocate of SSD drives for over 10 years when they didn't even exist. I'm glad to finally see them being developed into a serious competition for traditional ones.

Joshua.

[tirerim]

Hmm. Even if it is too thick, there might be a 128 GB version that would fit in the Air. Assuming that they make a PATA version of it, too, or that Apple switches the Air to SATA. Anyone know what Apple's particular reason for using PATA was? If it was just to match the drives they wanted (rather than being lighter or less power-intensive or something), then I could see them switching for better drives.

I just hope a 128 GB SSD is cheap enough for me to afford one by the time I want to buy an Air (probably sometime in 2009).

[Analog Kid]

What makes you think that? 64 GB SSD in the MBA costs $1000, and 64 * 4 = 256, and $1000 * 4 = $4000. Even if you add on an extra premium for it being a new technology making it cost more per megabyte (which is not the direction cost per megabyte usually goes) then it still doesn't sound like there's any reason fo it to cost over $5000.
Yep, and it can certainly be made cheaper than 4, 64GB drives-- this is using multilevel cell memory, which means fewer chips, less silicon, fewer interconnects... If Samsung got aggressive this could be priced at 2x the 64GB drive, and probably even less than that.

I'll be interested to see the full performance specs when it ships.

[junkmailbonzai]

I am just glad the technology is being pursued and advanced so eventually all of us can reap the benefits.

[Aron Peterson]

But wouldn't a 500GB 2.5" drive with 7200RPM speeds be faster or just as fast at a much cheaper price?

[HiRez]

But wouldn't a 500GB 2.5" drive with 7200RPM speeds be faster or just as fast at a much cheaper price?No way, the fastest speeds I've seen for a 2.5" 7200 RPM drive is about 80 MB/s read and 65 MB/s write (sequential). SSD drives are much faster as they don't have to spin a disc and move heads physically all over the surface, and that gap is only likely to get wider as SSD technology rapidly improves. The traditional hard disc as we know it is on the way out, but there are some other technologies that could compete with SSD in the near future.

[g8bo]

But wouldn't a 500GB 2.5" drive with 7200RPM speeds be faster or just as fast at a much cheaper price?

5 times faster...

[Aron Peterson]

No way, the fastest speeds I've seen for a 2.5" 7200 RPM drive is about 80 MB/s read and 65 MB/s write (sequential). SSD drives are much faster as they don't have to spin a disc and move heads physically all over the surface, and that gap is only likely to get wider as SSD technology rapidly improves. The traditional hard disc as we know it is on the way out, but there are some other technologies that could compete with SSD in the near future.

But what's the real world performance? A 500GB 2.5 inch drive would have very tightly packed sectors. And at 1TB we're talking super density.

[shigzeo]

when are we going to see good solid state options for that slot? i would love a fast 128gb boot drive there any photos and mag stuff along with music on the harddisk

[HiRez]

But what's the real world performance? A 500GB 2.5 inch drive would have very tightly packed sectors. And at 1TB we're talking super density.Well, it's a good question, and to a large extent I suppose it depends on what you're doing with it and how full the drive is. Bear in mind hard drives will slow down as they fill up while an SSD drive speed basically remains constant. I have seen a test where the current 64 GB SSD drive smoked a Hitachi 7K in small random read tests (by about 2X), and this new drive appears to be even faster overall.

I still don't think a 2.5" hard disc drive is going to keep up. At best it's going to maybe pull even in certain tests and get destroyed in others. Add in the durability, noise, and battery life advantages of SSD and it's no contest. The only thing keeping SSD back now is price and capacity and those are going to rapidly disappear.

[Aron Peterson]

True but I can't see HDD being dumped. It's more probable there will always be a caste system of Fast SSD at the top with less capacity but more performance and HDD below that with more capacity but less performance.

[sushi]

At the rate that the capacity of SSDs is increasing, HDs could go the way of the floppy within 5 years...
May not be within 5 years, but I do agree with you in concept.

iPod, Touch and iPhone are just dying for this technology to reach the 1 inch storage drive form factor that they use! (iirc)
The iPhone and iPod Touch use Flash memory. The iPhone has one slot and the iPod Touch has two slots. So if the maximum Flash memory chip is 16GB, the iPhone would max out at 16GB and the iPod Touch at 32GB, as they currently do.

The Classic iPods have 1.8 inch hard drives. So this technology could find it's way in there for sure.

The iPod Nano (all versions) uses the same type of Flash memory as the iPhone and iPod Touch.

The 1 inch drive storage form factor is used in Compact Flash memory cards, and thus used in high end digital cameras.

This year... $3000 next year, and will be a notebook standard within 5 years.
Yep, memory prices definitely decrease over time. Around 1993, a 32MB (that's Megabyte) SIMM cost around $3,200. Today, that same memory goes for $5 if you can find it, or need it.

But what's the real world performance? A 500GB 2.5 inch drive would have very tightly packed sectors. And at 1TB we're talking super density.
Density is only one measurement. You still have to take into account rotation and head positioning, plus latency. There is also the data transfer limitation from the disk to the head and through the HD circuity.

The 64 dollar question will be if we see a new HD design as flash memory becomes cheaper. The current design requires that we still have some sort of interface such as S-ATA and IDE (P-ATA).

Who knows, we may see something more attune to the implementation we see in the iPods and iPhone. The problem with this approach is space.

My guess, in the future, we will probably see a new interface that is oriented towards flash memory instead of the current hard drive implementation. However, it will not be surface or socket mount. Instead it will still have a HD connector of some sort like today.

[booksacool1]

True but I can't see HDD being dumped. It's more probable there will always be a caste system of Fast SSD at the top with less capacity but more performance and HDD below that with more capacity but less performance.

Where space/weight/power consumption is not a concern (i.e. desktop pc's), I can't see the market moving to SSD's for a while (unless they are a lot faster, in which cases they will be boot drives/scratch drives/swap file drives.)
Its gonna take a lot to wean people off the $110 750gb 3.5" drives. While SSD's are progressing fast (256gb for what, $5k?), they've obviously still got a long way to go.

Having said that, I'd say next year we will start seeing SSD's more than infrequently in laptops. Different concerns, different requirements.

[Aron Peterson]

What about as a Photoshop scratch disk? We currently have dual 10K Raptors in a RAID 0 stripe connected via eSATA. Could the current SSDs compete with that?

[MattInOz]

What makes you think that? 64 GB SSD in the MBA costs $1000, and 64 * 4 = 256, and $1000 * 4 = $4000. Even if you add on an extra premium for it being a new technology making it cost more per megabyte (which is not the direction cost per megabyte usually goes) then it still doesn't sound like there's any reason fo it to cost over $5000.

Part of what Samsung are saying here here by using a custom drive controller chip which lets them build a drive using cheap Mutli-level chips (same as used in iPhone) and get the same or better performance as expensive single-level chips (like used in Airs SSD).

So price for 64gb should drop by half

[nick9191]

IBM have a technology in development which is apparently much better, faster and cheaper with unlimited read/write capabilities. I'm holding out for that.

[MrCrowbar]

Hmm. Even if it is too thick, there might be a 128 GB version that would fit in the Air. Assuming that they make a PATA version of it, too, or that Apple switches the Air to SATA. Anyone know what Apple's particular reason for using PATA was? If it was just to match the drives they wanted (rather than being lighter or less power-intensive or something), then I could see them switching for better drives.

I just hope a 128 GB SSD is cheap enough for me to afford one by the time I want to buy an Air (probably sometime in 2009).

Apple might just "ask" to get one with PATA, just like they asked Intel to shrink that processor. Or, update the Macbook Air Logic board to one with a SATA Interface.

[DoFoT9]

IBM have a technology in development which is apparently much better, faster and cheaper with unlimited read/write capabilities. I'm holding out for that.

me too!! i dont remember what its called, but it has much better densities and all that (puts the data on the walls aswell as the holes). sounds like an awsome product for the same price (basically)

[MrCrowbar]

me too!! i dont remember what its called, but it has much better densities and all that (puts the data on the walls aswell as the holes). sounds like an awsome product for the same price (basically)

Holographic Memory?

[Yuppi]

What about as a Photoshop scratch disk? We currently have dual 10K Raptors in a RAID 0 stripe connected via eSATA. Could the current SSDs compete with that?

If you have an insane amount of money to spent give it a try and don't forget to report back :D
I am not sure what the typical access patterns look like for PS scratch disks. And another unknown is how well RAID controller can handle SSDs. RAID adapters assume that a seek operation takes time and are thus optimized to reduce this time. Often by caching data. So you might lose performance there.

But this leads to a very critical point. Current operation systems and their file systems are not optimized for SSDs yet. In the long run SSDs will blow away and ultimately replace HDDs.

The biggest current issue nevertheless is the real world availability of those SSDs..

[H$R]

Holographic Memory?

I think that's something different, though I never heard of that. IBM calles its own "Racetrack memory" http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3728060.ece

I just found the link above, and I remember that I've read about that some time ago in the newspaper. The funny thing about that article is..who really needs to store 500,000 songs on the go? Already 40'000 is way enough I think.

In the Wikipedia article for Holographic Memory there isn't even one word about IBM. So maybe something similar, but from other companies.

Anyway, the future will bring nice technology!

[DoFoT9]

Holographic Memory?
no lol..
I think that's something different, though I never heard of that. IBM calles its own "Racetrack memory" http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3728060.ece

I just found the link above, and I remember that I've read about that some time ago in the newspaper.

In the Wikipedia article for Holographic Memory there isn't even one word about IBM. So maybe something similar, but from other companies.

Anyway, the future will bring nice technology!

YES!! thats it!!! it sounds pretty good, and they say it will stay around the same price. im extremely intrigued

[winterspan]

What makes you think that? 64 GB SSD in the MBA costs $1000, and 64 * 4 = 256, and $1000 * 4 = $4000. Even if you add on an extra premium for it being a new technology making it cost more per megabyte (which is not the direction cost per megabyte usually goes) then it still doesn't sound like there's any reason fo it to cost over $5000.

Sorry, but this simple linear multiplication (64GB $1000 x 4 = 256GB $4000) is rubbish, not to mention using Apple's normally bloated BTO price. SSD prices, along with every other product in the world, are much more complex than that. The cost of large capacity SSDs is much higher than if it were directly proportional to the costs of lower-capacity models. Also, not every SSD is made the same, and the fastest SSDs from well-known brands have historically been much more expensive than a similar capacity, slower SSD from a smaller, more generic brand. There are also all kinds of flash types, architectures, controller technology, that have varying materials and R&D costs. Not only that, but market demand and intended clientèle play a large part in the current SSD market. Most customers for SSDs are large enterprises, defense contractors, aerospace companies, military, which will pay a large premium for these devices. They are basically charging what these types of organizations will bear at this point. They are going to have to restructure the ridiculous prices for consumer SSD products..

Another thing to consider is that SSD prices are hard to track down. Most manufacturers do not list prices on their websites, and many of their distributors are set-up to only offer these things OEM. The ones that are easiest to find retail prices for are the smaller, cheaper consumer-focused models. However, here is a small sampling of prices I was able to find on the internet. These prices come from Google Product/Yahoo search, Newegg, CDW, and a bunch of small distributor websites found on SSD manufacturer's websites. There are many other companies selling large 128GB+ SSDs such as Mtron, BitMicro, A-Data, Adtron, etc but prices could not be located.

256GB SSDs
Super Talent 3.5 inch 256GB SATA = $5,910.00
Super Talent 2.5" 256GB = $5,950
Axiom 2.5" SATA 256GB = $6,849.99

128GB SSDs
SUPER TALENT FSD28GC25M 2.5" 128GB SATA = $3,049
MTRON PRO 7500 3.5" 128GB SSD = $3,495
MemoRight GT 2.5" 128GB SATA SSD = $3,539
Super Talent 2.5" 128GB DuraDrive = $2,990
Super Talent 2.5" 128GB = $3,260.00
Super Talent 3.5" 128GB = $3,899.00


Anyways, the good thing about this specific Samsung announcement is that even though these new SSDs are going to be ultra-fast (and therefore expensive), they were still able to construct them using MLC flash, which has historically been much cheaper than SLC flash, but also significantly slower. So hopefully this line of devices will bring fast SSD pricing out of the stratosphere.

[BlizzardBomb]

At the rate that the capacity of SSDs is increasing, HDs could go the way of the floppy within 5 years...

Highly likely. Although the 3.5" form factor won't go down without a fight, as HDDs have a huge advantage there.

[Cyburnclassic]

This is good news, though a 128GB version on the MBA will be released before the 256GB obviously, and how much extra would the price be between the 64GB version and 128GB Version? (about $900-1100) im guessing

[Manic Mouse]

The 256GB drive changes this by switching to a new approach to multi-level cell storage that allegedly solves the problems of the format. The technology allows data to be much more densely packed, but has traditionally been slow and short-lived. However, a new drive controller not only gives it the same speed as single-level storage but gives it the same kind of longevity, at roughly one million hours before a failure occurs.

As it's more efficient in storing data, the multi-level cell technology is also "considerably" less expensive to make, though Samsung has stopped short of revealing the exact difference.

This is the most important part of this announcement, forget about the capacity and speed.

This technology could reduce the price of SSDs, and that's their main problem.

[CWallace]

At the rate that the capacity of SSDs is increasing, HDs could go the way of the floppy within 5 years...

Cost is a bigger factor then capacity.

Pundits have been saying for decades that "silicon is cheaper then iron", and yet we still use the latter to build are mass storage devices because while that adage is true for raw material costs, it has so far been the extreme and exact opposite in terms of the finished product.

1TB SSDs for $250 are likely far more then five years away, IMO.

[kornyboy]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

Things are definitely improving with SSDs but it is going to take some time before the price makes them practical enough to be a standard.

[guzhogi]

I doubt that SSD drives will overtake hard drives any time soon. Not enough capacity and still too expensive. I wonder if/when we'll see holographic storage & memristors in the consumer market.

Something I'd really like to see is a SSD RAID. Just curious how performance would compare, especially against 15,000 RPM SAS drives. I know SSD would not have any where near the storage, but speed would be the interesting part. I also checked, and Secure Digital cards would fit into a 1U enclosure.

[gkarris]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

Things are definitely improving with SSDs but it is going to take some time before the price makes them practical enough to be a standard.

Prices should fall rather quickly. Plus I would imagine there being a variety of drive sizes:

32, 64, 128, 256 Gig....

Would be cool to replace my old 20 Gig drive in my Thinkpad X31 with an SSD!

[iceman1234]

The mac book air runs on PATA not SATA II they would have to reconfigure the logic board to support this drive...:D

look:
http://www.apple.com/macbookair/specs.html (http://www.apple.com/macbookair/specs.html)

[Axemantitan]

Simpletech announced a 512GB SSD, but is 3.5 inch.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/18/simpletech-announces-512gb-and-256gb-3-5-inch-ssd-drives/

[vultureboy70]

Wait, what's the difference between SATA and SATA II?:confused:

[OllyW]

Wait, what's the difference between SATA and SATA II?:confused:

They really shouldn't call it SATA II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA#SATA_II_Misnomer).

It's proper name is SATA 3.0 Gbit/s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA#SATA_3.0_Gbit.2Fs). It explains the differences in the article.

[winterspan]

Simpletech announced a 512GB SSD, but is 3.5 inch.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/18/simpletech-announces-512gb-and-256gb-3-5-inch-ssd-drives/

Thats nothing for a 3.5" form factor. Check this out! BitMicro has SSDs up to 1.6TB!
http://www.techworld.com/storage/news/index.cfm?newsid=10660


I think that's something different, though I never heard of that. IBM calles its own "Racetrack memory" http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3728060.ece
Anyway, the future will bring nice technology!

Well there are all kinds of potential flash replacements, from "racetrack memory" to "phase change memory" to stuff based on holography to 3 dimensional stacked memory to MEMs-based. That's all great, but until they find their way out of the lab, it's worthless to speculate about anything replacing NAND flash. I think we'll definitely see 256GB - 512GB SSDs that are ~$500 before we'll see anything replace flash.


I doubt that SSD drives will overtake hard drives any time soon. Not enough capacity and still too expensive. I wonder if/when we'll see holographic storage & memristors in the consumer market.

Something I'd really like to see is a SSD RAID. Just curious how performance would compare, especially against 15,000 RPM SAS drives. I know SSD would not have any where near the storage, but speed would be the interesting part. I also checked, and Secure Digital cards would fit into a 1U enclosure.

It's not capacity that's holding back SSDs, especially for laptops, its the price. They just came out with 2.5" 7200RPM drives that hold 320GB. You can already buy 2.5" 256GB and even 512GB SSDs, if cost is not a concern. And likewise, I believe 15,000RPM SAS drives max out at 300GB. If size is not a concern, you can get 800GB and 1.6 Terabyte 3.5" SSDs from BitMicro. If you bought a fast SATAII SSD, it should be able to keep up with the sequential read rate of a 15K SAS drive, although the 15K SAS would probably be a bit faster for large sequential writes. On the other hand, the SSD would wipe the floor with the SAS drive when it comes to smaller, random access reads and writes. It really all depends on your use profile. I'm sure if you google around, you'll find some good reviews of SSDs for different applications.

[Consultant]

But what's the real world performance? A 500GB 2.5 inch drive would have very tightly packed sectors. And at 1TB we're talking super density.

Certain high end SSD drives can be faster in many operations than desktop server drives, definitely faster than any mobile HD. Except these are pricy and currently NOT available smaller than 2.5" at a reasonable price.

http://www.nextlevelhardware.com/storage/mtron16/

Currently, 64GB Mtron (both PATA and SATA, however 2.5" and larger only) fast SSD costs slightly over $1000. Price will drop.



when are we going to see good solid state options for that slot? i would love a fast 128gb boot drive there any photos and mag stuff along with music on the harddisk

They do make them for over a year now. Except they seem to only make the slow USB speed version. A ton of pros would buy high speed SSD ExpressCard, but currently no companies make them.

[Duderon]

Super Talent just released 128GB SATA I SSD for practically half the price of most 64 GB SSDs with comparable performance.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820609304