256Gb, not GB. Gb = Gigabit = 1/8 of a Gigabyte
So 16 256 gigabit chips will give you 512 gigaBYTEs.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Samsung Announces 512GB NVMe SSD That's Smaller Than a Stamp
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
256Gb, not GB. Gb = Gigabit = 1/8 of a Gigabyte
So 16 256 gigabit chips will give you 512 gigaBYTEs.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Backblazes reports are regarding traditional spinners and not SSDs.
A couple months back I linked an article regarding GOOGLE's 6 Year Study on SSD Reliability | Flash Reliability in Production. It's a good read.
There are sixteen 256Gb (i.e. gigabit) chips inside, which is equal to 512GB (i.e. gigabytes). Note the difference between small and big B - b means bit and B means byte. One byte is equal to eight bits.
Man, you could easily have 2-3TB SSD laptop with this technology. Do you really need to upgrade it?
[doublepost=1464779585][/doublepost]
Non-soldered you wouldn't be abe to reach 1500Mb/s I am afraid.
There are M.2 PCIe SSDs doing +3GB/s. Soldering saves space, that's the main reason. Otherwise the SSD needs its own PCH and a separate connector, which both take space.
You can be certain of this, on the other hand this is so small that they can solder a few of these on it.....
Looking at what Intel is doing, I expect this to be solder directly on the mother board and in the far future: intgrated directly with the CPU
Wowzers..... !! These chips are getting tiny.
Why are chips still external these day when we have the capability to integrate everything in a single chip, improving speed and performance ? Plus, the benefit of adding saving space for any other components, u could otherwise not do. Wouldn't being external also slow down performance ?
Why are chips still external these day when we have the capability to integrate everything in a single chip, improving speed and performance ? Plus, the benefit of adding saving space for any other components, u could otherwise not do. Wouldn't being external also slow down performance ?
Based on this Wikipedia article about bit rates of various devices, DDR4-3200 RAM can transfer 25.6 gigabytes per second, so that 1 TB of data would take only 40 seconds, compared to the SSD's 10.5 minutes. This SSD is fast, much faster than any spinning disk, but it's not close to contemporary RAM speeds.
This hard drive moves data at 1.6 GB/s, so it's faster than some of the slowest RAM on that list. The fact this comparison can seriously be made at all seems pretty promising to me. It seems like historically RAM has been ~100x faster than disks... this thing is 1/16th the speed of RAM.
That's definitely not true.
PCIE goes at 984.6 MB/s per lane. A 4x PCIE slot would do almost 4GB/s.
Even if this SSD storage was in the same price point as 1 TB 5400 rpm spindle drive, Apple will still find a way to keep the spinning drive as the base and charge $300-$500 for flash based storage. I am so sick of this crap, it is unbelievable.
My freaking 6 years old i5 27" iMac with Samsung SSD is snappier and performs better in most office and general tasks than a brand new base $1799 27" iMac system. This is disgusting.
All you guys that claim Apple to be falling behind in innovation because of this SSD: The race simply does not exist here!
Apple simply doesn't compete in mass storage research (at least not until now). Compared to Apple Samsung is a much broader company with lots of divisions and their phone and computer guys probably buy components from "Samsung Components" (or whatever name they have) just as any other customer (I don't know the financial legislation in Korea, but chances are that they also don't get (much) better pricing than any other customer).
So you could claim as well that "Samsung Phone" or "Samsung Computer" are falling behind in the innovation race, as they did not develop such an SSD (which would be as flawed a comparison as the Apple one).
Apple simply doesn't compete in mass storage research (at least not until now). Compared to Apple Samsung is a much broader company with lots of divisions and their phone and computer guys probably buy components from "Samsung Components" (or whatever name they have) just as any other customer (I don't know the financial legislation in Korea, but chances are that they also don't get (much) better pricing than any other customer).
So you could claim as well that "Samsung Phone" or "Samsung Computer" are falling behind in the innovation race, as they did not develop such an SSD (which would be as flawed a comparison as the Apple one).
And I can buy a 128GB SSD off an electronic store shelf for $40. Too bad it won't fit in an Apple.
To be honest I read it a while ago and couldn't remember if SSD's were started to be included. Either way my main point was there are services that are tracking the reliability of the drives they use and publishing the results publically. SSDs are bound to be included at some point as costs go down and reliability goes up.
I remember one study showing that SSDs were far more reliable and writable for consumers for a decade. Servers would obviously shorten that lifetime. I think it was either an Arstechnica or Anandtech article.
> 1TB SSDs....It wasn't that long ago I was all excited when I purchased the 16KB (that's 16,000 bytes) memory expansion module for my Sinclair T1000. That came with 1K base memory, tape cassette storage, and 1Mhz Z80 processor. I still have that in my attic along with my 300 baud modem.
The computer company I work for now, I can remember the long strings of 100MB hard drives; each the size of a dish washer.
The computer company I work for now, I can remember the long strings of 100MB hard drives; each the size of a dish washer.
I think the optane ones will win this fight. Because they are faster. But i guess, the price may be also a decision for apple to take...