Slashdot Mirror


Kingston HyperX Predator SSD Takes Gumstick M.2 PCIe Drives To 1.4GB/sec

MojoKid writes Kingston recently launched their HyperX Predator PCIe SSD that is targeted at performance-minded PC enthusiasts but is much less expensive than enterprise-class PCIe offerings that are currently in market. Kits are available in a couple of capacities and form factors at 240GB and 480GB. All of the drives adhere to the 80mm M.2 2280 "gumstick" form factor and have PCIe 2.0 x4 connections, but are sold both with and without a half-height, half-length adapter card, if you'd like to drop it into a standard PCI Express slot. At the heart of the Kingston HyperX Predator is Marvell's latest 88SS9293 controller. The Marvell 88SS9293 is paired to a gigabyte of DDR3 memory and Toshiba A19 Toggle NAND. The drives are rated for read speeds up to 1.4GB/s and writes of 1GB/s and 130 – 160K random 4K IOPS. In the benchmarks, the 480GB model put up strong numbers. At roughly $1 per GiB, the HyperX Predator is about on par with Intel's faster SSD 750, but unlike Intel's new NVMe solution, the Kingston drive will work in all legacy platforms as well, not just Z97 and X99 boards with a compatible UEFI BIOS.

51 comments

  1. Wow... by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Informative

    Most blatant slashvertisment I've ever seen.

    1. Re:Wow... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Indeed. Look through the submittor's history though: Similar stories about upcoming product releases of PCIe SSDs from HGST, Intel and Samsung. More interesting is that every story he submits is from hothardware.com - MojoKid is either a very loyal reader, or he works for them.

    2. Re:Wow... by JMJimmy · · Score: 0

      Most blatant slashvertisment I've ever seen.

      Problem is as a consumer I could care less about the speed of SSD drives. I would like to care about the speed but they've not addressed the major problem: price. $1/GB is just insane in a $0.03/GB world. I need capacity far more than I need speed.

    3. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're new here, aren't you.

    4. Re:Wow... by valnar · · Score: 1

      I care more about reliability and would be willing to give up some benchmark numbers for it. The smaller they make the NAND, the bigger chance of bit rot.

    5. Re:Wow... by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      I need capacity far more than I need speed.

      Your needs are not their target. They target high IOPs environments, like VMware host caching, database transaction tables, etc.

      Go buy 10k/15k drives if you want capacity over speed, but with some speed.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    6. Re:Wow... by beelsebob · · Score: 2

      On the other hand, the smaller they make the nand, the more they can cram on a chip, and the more wear levelling they can do, so the more reliable it becomes.

    7. Re:Wow... by swb · · Score: 1

      Samsung 850 1 TB drives are about $0.38/GB.

      They're not as fast as these drives but it looks to me like flash vendors are kind of inventing a new category of benchmarking stroke artistry around storage.

      I can't even begin to imagine what usage advantage is to be gained from some of these over the more traditional SATA SSDs outside of very marginal activities, except for benchmark chasers.

    8. Re:Wow... by valnar · · Score: 0

      Wear leveling doesn't help with static data as much, or if the SSD doesn't have power. The second you stop flowing electricity through it, the degradation starts (albeit very slowly). At the rate they are going, the hard drive manufacturers should have nothing to worry about. Sure, cheaper cost per Gig will make hard drives less attractive for a primary OS, but on the other hand, HDD's can retain data while it is off for months or years at a time.

      As someone who uses USB HDD's for backups (not powered up much) this is important. Some may think this is silly, but imagine if you were told you had to spin up every one of your DVD-R's every few months to keep the data intact?

      This is why all my SSD's are older. Most are 34nm, some 25nm. Nothing smaller. The speed trade-off from 22nm, 20nm, 19nm and below is barely incremental in daily usage.

    9. Re:Wow... by beelsebob · · Score: 2

      Well duh... Did you really think that the SSD makers were targeting 1.4GB/s random read/write devices at making backups?

    10. Re:Wow... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Most blatant slashvertisment I've ever seen.

      Problem is as a consumer I could care less about the speed of SSD drives. I would like to care about the speed but they've not addressed the major problem: price. $1/GB is just insane in a $0.03/GB world. I need capacity far more than I need speed.

      Actually, in the SSD world, that is more like $0.40/GB. So this new low price point is only 2.5 times the existing price point. But then , the speed is about triple.
      I don't think I would pay 2.5 times as much for 3 times the speed, but maybe other people would.
      If you REALLY don't care about speed and are only interested in capacity, then SSDs should not even be on the radar for you. Look at Hard Drives instead.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    11. Re:Wow... by valnar · · Score: 0

      Irrelevant. A storage medium shouldn't be so volatile than a mere month without power would cause them to go bad. I wouldn't touch 16nm TLC with a 10' pole.

    12. Re:Wow... by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      I can't even begin to imagine what usage advantage is to be gained from some of these over the more traditional SATA SSDs outside of very marginal activities, except for benchmark chasers.

      Saving & loading very large files -- example: video or audio. Personally I work with 1GB audio files, regularly saving and loading them. I would like an SSD faster than the one I have currently.

      --
      I come here for the love
    13. Re:Wow... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Hothotware.com reviews are pretty shitty too. Bog standard benchmark suite, and no mention of critical missing features like OPAL V2 (or eDrive as Microsoft calls it, basically proper encryption support) or how it handles unexpected loss of power in real world conditions.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:Wow... by m.dillon · · Score: 1

      Well, except that it isn't a mere month. Unpowered data retention is around 10 years for relatively unworn flash and around 1 year for worn flash. Powered data retention is almost indefinite (doesn't matter if the data is static or not). The modern SSD controller will rewrite blocks as the bits leave the sweet zone.

      The main benefit, though, is that SSD wear is essentially based on how much data you've written, which is a very controllable parameter and means, among other things, that even a SSD which has been sitting on a shelf for a long time and lost its data can still be used for fresh data (TRIM wipe + newfs). I have tons of SSDs sitting on a shelf ready to be reused when I need them next. I can't really do that with HDDs and still expect them to be reliable.

      Hard drives have a relatively fixed life whether powered or not. If you have a modestly used hard drive and take it out and put it on a shelf for a year, chances are it either won't be able to spin up after that year or it will die relatively quickly (within a few weeks, possibly even faster) once you have spun it up. So get your data off it fast if you can.

      So SSDs already win in the data retention and reliability-on-reuse department.

      -Matt

    15. Re:Wow... by JMJimmy · · Score: 0

      I want an SSD for the basic performance increase over platter drives for many reasons but I'm not going to pay 13 times more per GB for an SSD over a platter drive. They'd have to bring the $/GB of SSDs to under $0.15 for them to be worth switching. As is I'm looking at 10TB of storage minimum for home use.

    16. Re:Wow... by valnar · · Score: 0

      " Unpowered data retention is around 10 years for relatively unworn flash and around 1 year for worn flash."

      Unfortunately, that is not true of smaller processes. It's much worse. That figure is for 90nm SLC.

    17. Re:Wow... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      If I was looking at 10 TB of storage, I would guess that I might have a need for maybe a 300 or 400 GB SSD along with platter. I use SSD for only a small fraction of my storage. Basically the OS and files which I need to load fast. In my case that is Flight Simulator files. I have 3 TB of platter drive for everything else. If you are storing media (just guessing, based on the 10 TB), then platter is plenty fast enough for loading.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    18. Re:Wow... by Hunter-Killer · · Score: 1

      Most blatant slashvertisment I've ever seen.

      Well, let's look: ~MojoKid

      Not a Slashvertisment, merely yet another attempt to drive traffic to a lousy site.

    19. Re:Wow... by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      Day to day needs I would want 3x2TB SSDs for laptop use, a 2TB SSD external for games run directly off the drive and the remainder could be platters. That would be my ideal situation if SSDs were cheaper. I can't afford that so I've stuck entirely with platters and limiting speed factor on my system is the drives in them... I'm constantly hitting 100% usage for extended periods keeping the systems hanging.

    20. Re:Wow... by beelsebob · · Score: 2

      That's odd, because Micron gives 1 year un-powered retention warranties on their TLC drives, even when worn.

    21. Re:Wow... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Why?

      If you answer build your own dvr which only represent 5% of users then you need just a fixed long sequencial access. Ah a mechanical disk is up your alley. You don't do random 4k burst dependent on latency. You gain nothing and a mechanical disk is like $60 a tb. So buy some cheap WD green's in a raid and call it a day. Use an ssd for pc use.

      1 tb = 2,400 page word document for every man, woman, and child whoever lived! Most consumers never come close to filling 200 gbs. No need.

      And there are external drives you can use for TV shows which is the only use for 98% of all uses

    22. Re:Wow... by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      I have 123 games in my Steam library, less than 1/3rd of them are installed due to lack of space on my 1TB platter drive. 90% of the time they can sit on any format of drive and it won't matter, but the other 10% of the time they need performance and they need it right away. They're too large to be continually deleting and re-downloading, so the ideal is to have them on an SSD so they have the performance when they need it.

      That's just games not including video rendering applications, audio manipulation, etc. It took me less than 5 days to fill 1TB when I first got this machine - on a monthly basis I'll churn between 750GB and 1.6TB of data between 2x1TB drives according to my ISP and that's not including local uses of which there are numerous that require both performance and lots of capacity.

    23. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More interesting is that every story he submits is from hothardware.com - MojoKid is either a very loyal reader, or he works for them.

      It is already well known that MojoKid works for HotHardware.

    24. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most blatant slashvertisment I've ever seen.

      Well, let's look: ~MojoKid

      Not a Slashvertisment, merely yet another attempt to drive traffic to a lousy site.

      Ergo it's a Slashvertisement for that lousy site.

    25. Re:Wow... by nhat11 · · Score: 1

      Just a question, what prevents someone from doing the same thing but with a different site? Isn't anyone free to do this? Maybe MojoKid just likes that site and is that a problem?

  2. Yes, But Does The Logo Have Flames? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm sure it must be pretty damn good since it has "HyperX" and "Predator" in the name, which is always an indication of high quality and reliability. But I can't be absolutely sure it's the absolute best unless it has flames on the logo.

    1. Re:Yes, But Does The Logo Have Flames? by mridoni · · Score: 1

      A couple of extra Xs would also be good

    2. Re:Yes, But Does The Logo Have Flames? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      The summary says it has Marvel's latest controller, so at least the superhero angle is covered.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    3. Re:Yes, But Does The Logo Have Flames? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Wait...where's the big red (useless) cooling fins? It cannot be good unless it has red cooling fins. Or maybe black, if that is what your theme is inside the case.

    4. Re:Yes, But Does The Logo Have Flames? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      And they need to be at least big enough to obstruct an adjacent expansion slot.

  3. Why trust them? by RelaxedTension · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After their bait and switch with SSD's, how can anyone trust them or the reviews?

    http://www.extremetech.com/ext...

    1. Re:Why trust them? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They also want proof of purchase to RMA devices with lifetime warranties, like flash memory. Up theirs. If I wanted theft protection I'd register ownership.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Why trust them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. Kingston should be dissolved after this total lack of integrity.

    3. Re: Why trust them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, this. How can they be trusted now?

  4. I prefer the blatant ads by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I can figure out it's an ad from the first sentence of TFS, or better yet from the headline, then that's a massive win. What's annoying is the slashvertisements which masquerade as articles.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. Mutlibay chassis by rbrandis · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know of a mutlibay drive chassis for this form factor? It would be interesting to make an array of these.

    1. Re:Mutlibay chassis by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      They interface directly to the PCI-E. No storage controller in between. For maximum performance - few SATA or SAS controllers could keep up with a high-end SSD. A 'multibay drive chassis' is just to fit as many PCIE-M2 converters as you have PCIE slots.

      It still uses the AHCI bodge - think of it as a 'fake' SATA controller that gives the OS something supported to boot from. Some drives on PCI-E use NVMe which is even higher performance, but not this one, because not all common OSs support it.

  6. Holy crap, that marketing spin by gman003 · · Score: 2

    "unlike Intel's new NVMe solution, the Kingston drive will work in all legacy platforms as well, not just Z97 and X99 boards with a compatible UEFI BIOS."

    So it uses AHCI instead of NVMe, and tries to spin this off as a benefit over Intel's drive.

    Bull.

    Fucking.

    SHIT.

    AHCI dates back to 2006. It was an improvement over IDE, but it was still designed for spinning rust. No parallel queues, a paltry limit of 32 queued commands, and a design that puts a pretty substantial load on the CPU for each command used. It's something like 14,000 cycles spent in just the driver code for an AHCI command - compare 10,000 for the entire OS stack from fread() to actual bits going over the line for NVMe.

    Now, it is true that NVMe isn't fully supported on older motherboards. But that's only boot support - an NVMe drive will work as a data drive on anything running a current OS (Linux 3.3+, Windows 7+). And guess what? Most motherboards that have an M.2 slot* to begin with... are NVMe-compatible. So if you're buying an M.2 drive, you can probably use the NVMe drive. And if you're building a new computer, you'll be getting one that works with NVMe.

    Backwards compatibility is important. I'm not saying to discontinue SATA SSDs. But making an M.2 drive that still uses AHCI, then claiming the backwards compatibility as a benefit, is just pure marketing bullshit.

    * M.2 is a weird physical interface that can be connected to up to three different interfaces - PCIe, SATA and USB. The USB is only really used for wireless cards, so that leaves PCIe and SATA. Unfortunately motherboards don't have to wire both up to the slot. You can find some cheap motherboards with an M.2 slot that only works with SATA drives. I personally refuse to count those as full M.2 slots. And both Intel's 750 (the NVMe one) and Kingston's drive being advertized here would not work in such a drive, so my point about "if you can put this drive in your computer, you can put a 750 in there and have it work" stands.

    1. Re:Holy crap, that marketing spin by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Go to Amazon and search for the Intel drive? $2400 now??! The Kingston is much cheaper oh and I have 950 megs a second from my ahci Samsung pro 80s running on fake raid 0 from intel rst. So speed is still possible as 14000 cpu cycles is nothing when an i7 can do 180,000 instructions a second. Kind of sad that an inefficient design is that poor? Shouldn't we have solved this with an external i/o chip? Or have a component in the cpu? The point of Scsi was for this reason back in the 1990s

    2. Re:Holy crap, that marketing spin by gman003 · · Score: 1

      Uh, you sure you were searching for the Intel 750? Because Amazon lists it for $471 for the 400GB model, or $1200 for the 1200GB model. Which is quite a bit inflated from NewEgg's pricing but not exactly the $2400 you listed.

      Oh wait, I should have read the rest of your post first. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

  7. Puulease... Kingston? Really? by m.dillon · · Score: 2

    Author must not know the difference between the real the rebrand. I would never buy Kingston anything. They just slap random components into those boards. There are hundreds of rebranders in the SSD space but only a handful of real companies. Kingston isn't one of them.

    -Matt

  8. No by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stop calling these things "gumstick". It's not going to happen. Stop trying to make it happen. They're considerably larger than a stick of gum, are not chewy or delicious, and you're a piece of shit for trying to make that term stick.
    Further, who cares? 1.4 GB/sec is nothing noteworthy. This is a /vertisement through and through.

    1. Re:No by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      You broke a tooth, didn't you?

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    2. Re:No by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Stop calling these things "gumstick".... you're a piece of shit for trying to make that term stick.

      I see what you did there. In fact, I'm having a hard time removing that thought from under my desk.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    3. Re:No by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Do not eat iPod Shuffle.

    4. Re:No by pz · · Score: 1

      Heck, it turned me on to the Intel 750! Kingston, meh. A new (to me at least) fast Intel SSD? Bring it on -- can't wait to buy one!

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  9. DMI / QPI bottleneck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    something to consider but not sure: the i7-4770K is listed as having "only" 5 GT/sec.
    so this is enough to push the limit of the kingston IF it is the only thing taxing the PCI-E bus but i think 5 GT/sec is not enough IF one needs the full speed of the SSD AND at the same time trying to push a modern 16 x PCI-E connected GPU thru the i7-4770K?
    maybe a test like stream data from SSD to memory and some simple GPU calculation on that and pushing that back to the SSD? could the 5GT/sec be taxed?
    faster off-line storage is always welcome though : )

  10. outdated to begin with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This drive is NOT NVMe, and its not even PCI 3.0, if you are interested in newest fastest search for the new Intel 750 PCIe 3.0 4x and the new Samsung 951 in its newest NVMe form coming soon. But works best with x99 mobo to be bootable as C

  11. pretty dumb by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    The #1 feature of a half gumstick-sized SSD was that you could add two drives to a laptop with an empty WAN or Bluetooth slot. These twice as long drives don't fit in any laptop I've ever seen. So why even bother? Solder the chips directly to the PCI-E card. It's not fitting in anything but a desktop. Either that or just don't try to make drives that big and make an ultra-fast medium capacity drive for laptops so I can add a 1Tb 2.5" drive to the normal bay and have the perfect laptop.

    1. Re:pretty dumb by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of desktops with M.2 slots.