Intel Launches Flurry of 3D NAND-Based SSDs For Consumer and Enterprise Markets (hothardware.com)
MojoKid writes: Intel launched a handful of new SSD products today that cover a broad spectrum of applications and employ 3D NAND technology. The SSD 600p Series is offered in four capacities ranging from 128GB, to 256GB, 512GB and 1TB. The drivers are targeted at consumer desktops and notebooks and are available in the M.2 form-factor. The entry-level 128GB model offers sequential reads and writes of up to 770 MB/sec and 450 MB/sec respectively. At higher densities, the multi-channel 1TB model offers sequential reads and writes that jump to 1,800 MB/sec and 560 MB/sec respectively. The 128GB SSD 600p weighs in at $69, while the 1TB model is priced at $359, or about .36 cents per GiB. For the data center, Intel has also introduced the DC P3520 and DC S3520 Series SSDs in 2.5-inch and PCIe half-height card form-factors. Available in 450GB to 2TB capacities, the range-topping 2TB model offers random reads/writes of 1,700 MB/sec and 1,350 MB/sec respectively. Finally, Intel launched the SSD E 6000p (PCIe M.2) and SSD E 5420s Series (SATA). The former supports Core vPro processors and is targeted at point-of-sale systems and digital signage. The latter is aimed at helping customers ease the transition from HDDs to SSDs in IoT applications.
Why is it racist to say that black people need to stop committing so many crimes and killing each other so much?
the 1TB model is priced at $359, or about .36 cents per GiB
Really? REALLY?
"1TB model is priced at $359, or about .36 cents per GiB"
36% of a cent per gigabyte? Care to multiply that out for me?
So is the main advantage of 3d NAND technology going to be access speed? I thought it was going to be able to enormously increase capacity, but with the drives coming in between 128GB and 1TB (similar sizes to existing drives), maybe I got the wrong idea.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
What amazes me most, but is probably because i'm getting old is:
looking at the announcement, it seems like the SATA drive is just an obligatory part of the line-up. Its all M.2 and PCIe.
Sure, SATA is getting old quickly and starts to become the bottleneck, but the way this is going, motherboards will soon have some SATA port somewhere for the occasional DVD / old spinning drive, and M.2 for the rest. Did i just recently buy my last SATA drives to fill up my NAS? I'm not planning on buying more for the next couple of years.
Man, i remember buying my first ATA drive. And i was late to the party, it already was a stunning 20MB (imagine how many WP files were needed to fill that sucker up to the rim). And man, that thing was fast as lightning! ;-)
Why are other peoples sig's always more witty ???
How does this compare to 3d-xpoint stuff?
leather-dog muksihs
Blog: @muksihs
the 1TB model is priced at $359, or about .36 cents per GiB
Look, I've got nothing against being pedantic with "GiB" = 2^30 bytes, and I can divide by 1000 on my own, but if you're going there at least get it right.
1TB is 1,000,000,000,000 bytes and is only 931.323 GiB, so the cost per GiB is 39 cents to 2 significant digits. Note that's nowhere near .36 cents, which is less than half a cent. I presume OP meant "$0.36" or "36 cents".
"The drivers are targeted at consumer desktops and notebooks and are available in the M.2 form-factor."
That's cool and all, but are there drivers available for Linux?
I had a dream that I was kissing 3 of 4 girls that I'm dating.
Technology always gets better, (which is why we have flying cars and supersonic passenger transport), so I assume I don't need to buy these SSDs, I can just3D print them?
So, how much am I going to pay for a 512GB M.2? And does it have 4 lanes?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
...what does this mean? Does it imply that they'll have an easier time keeping their fabs at 100% utilization, regardless of how the market for their CPUs and other stuff is doing? By flooding the market w/ so many SSDs?
See subject: Intel does a LOT for Linux so I'd be surprised if they didn't account for what you noted...
APK
It's a typo. Someone wrote "drivers" when they meant "drives"
Stop spamming about host files being the penultimate security device and try to use your brain, addled and atrophied as it is.
The limitation of SATA is the bandwidth. NVMe can go to 2 gigs so you won't see much difference on consumer pcs. But it would be a nice relief as I pay for hte premium prices of the samsung pros in my rig.
http://saveie6.com/
See subject: You can't is why... lol!
* That's ALL I really need to say, especially considering not a SINGLE ONE of you has ever, EVER proven me wrong on my points on hosts giving users more security, speed, reliability & anonymity online for FAR less (yet doing FAR more than any SINGLE other "so-called 'solution'" that's illogically "Bolting on 'MoAr'" stupidity vs. using what you already have NATIVELY built- in in hosts, that works for all of the above...)
APK
P.S.=> Truth about YOU hurt, Mr. Off-Topic jealous little "ne'er-do-well" unidentifiable weasel troll? Absolutely - you fail as ANYONE can "talk" but very few DO (like myself)... apk
Curious how these will compare to the 950 pro. The 950 seems to have better read/write speeds and IOPS, but is more expensive. Samsung probably has some new drives ready to come out any day now too.
...and how long before Intel voyeurs poison the firmware in the SSD controller to to report home with your data (if they haven't already)?
It's important to understand that while we benchmark storage in MB/s, those units are actually the inverse of how we perceive their speed - wait time. Wait time would be sec/GB. To see what the consequences of this are, imagine loading up a game involves reading 1 GB of data, and for simplicity imagine you can read that 1 GB at max speed.
33 MB/s = 30 sec - old IDE HDD
66 MB/s = 15 sec - newer IDE HDD
125 MB/s = 8 sec - SATA HDD
250 MB/s = 4 sec - SATA2 SSD
500 MB/s = 2 sec - SATA3 SSD
1000 MB/s = 1 sec - early PCIe SSDs
2000 MB/s = 0.5 sec - newer PCIe SSDs
Notice how every time MB/s doubles, wait time is only cut in half. This means perceive speed increases are the inverse of MB/s, and thus not linear in terms of MB/s. The difference between SATA and SATA3 (125 MB/s and 500 MB/s) is "only" 375 MB/s. While the difference between SATA3 and newer PCIe drives is a whopping 1500 MB/s. But that doesn't mean that upgrading from SATA3 to a newer PCIe SSD will feel 4x faster than upgrading from a HDD to a SATA3 SSD felt.
The reduction in wait time going from the SATA HDD to a SATA3 SSD was 8 sec vs 2 sec - a 6 sec reduction. But the reduction in wait time going from SATA3 to newer PCIe is only 2 sec vs 0.5 sec - a 1.5 sec reduction. So upgrading from a SATA3 SSD to a newer PCIe SSD will only give you 1/4 the perceived speed increase you got when you upgraded from a HDD to a SSD. Not 4x. Compared to a SATA HDD, a SATA3 SSD gives you 80% the wait time reduction of the newest PCIe SSDs (6 sec vs 7.5 sec).
In other words, for the typical amounts of data we need to read off of storage, SATA3 SSDs have already given us most of the speed benefit we can expect by making our storage media faster. (The same problem plagues cars and using MPG to measure fuel efficiency. MPG is actually the inverse of fuel efficiency. It's the metric you want to use if you have a fixed amount of fuel and need to know how far you can travel, like if you're in a boat. The vast majority of people's driving is the other way around - they need to travel a fixed distance, and want to do it using as little fuel as possible - which is GPM. So the biggest fuel savings actually comes from making fuel hogs like tractor trailers, buses, and SUVs more efficient, not from econoboxes like the Prius. Despite how big 50 MPG sounds, going from 25 MPG to 50 MPG actually only represents half the fuel saved of going from 12.5 MPG to 25 MPG.. The rest of the world measures fuel efficiency in liters per 100 km for this reason - equivalent to GPM.)
See subject: Coren22 tells lies about me I crush him on -> https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9380571&cid=52536769/ & my ware is bad (/.'ers disagree) -> https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9493863&cid=52719085/ & he hasn't done squat in computing (+ he can't prove otherwise, & he's ALL mere 'talk' being a chattering blabbermouth know-nothing DO nothing mere fake online name using TROLL, lol - fact).
* I also avoid a security issue riddled DNS system (massively bloated resource pig too if locally installed w/ more moving parts for breakdown/exploit too) https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9007355&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=51969075/ 96++% of the time too & that link proves its faults in SECURITY, RELIABILITY, RESOURCE BLOAT + more in a dozen++ categories & 100's of example proofs of each...
APK
P.S.=> See subject Coren22 - it's you - a jealous do-nothing "ne'er-do-well" & MENTALLY damaged brain-defective fool (Mr. ASSBurger, lol) - just facts about YOU, you reprehensible disgusting little pisspot... apk
"Hosts files might have a smaller footprint than adblocking software, but they have a horrendous performance impact" - by Coren22
WRONG & AdBlock's SLOWER: http://superuser.com/questions/686041/which-leads-to-faster-browsing-an-ad-blocker-or-an-edited-hosts-file/
"DNS is far superior to hosts files, especially in AD environments where your hosts file will break AD name resolution" - by Coren22
100's of examples of DNS' shortcomings galore in resource bloat, security issues & more that I avoid via hosts in 12++ of categories https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9007355&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=51969075/ - & HOW do hosts do that to AD? You STILL go where you need to faster (local RAM resolution's faster).
APK
P.S.=>
"You do not post to Slashdot by utilizing a bridge, you didn't even know what a bridge was" - by Coren22
Yes I do, & I was using + setting up bridged connections BEFORE YOU WERE BORN probably... apk
See subject & learn to read you brain-damaged assburger illiterate: Hosts are more efficient & local RAM cached hosts resolution is faster than even a local DNS (has transit time over the LAN & more moving parts, security issues galore + more resource use - period). I claimed to use a bridged connection stupid (modem is set into dummy mode - then again, just judging by your illiteracy on adblocking addons vs. hosts trying to move the goalposts illogically as usual? You continually prove your brain defects Mr. Assburger).
* Did you create anything like a DNS or my program, "ne'er-do-well"? NO... why?? You're nothing more than a FUCKING low-skill menial (your kind's HELPLESS minus programmers like myself creating tools you merely USE, user... fact).
APK
P.S.=> One of these days, why don't we meet so I can get rid of you ONCE & FOR ALL you chicken shit little do nothing troll? apk
See subject stupid - hosts are part of the IP stack itself & yes, thus networking! Guys like ME create tools mere "ne'er-do-well" MENIALS like yourself merely use, lol - fact.
* Do you create anything or worth in computing we can use? Not that I've ever seen...
(Thanks for contradicting yourself stupid - you do wonders for making ME look GOOD & yourself stupider than ever as a limited menial who merely uses tools guys like me create)
APK
P.S.=> Quit wasting my time you waste of food, air, & water... apk
Coren22, I've shown you adblock's slower. My lists in favor of hosts DUST adblock totally in abilities & resource use (not to mention its crippled by default "souled-out" as well)
I also told you this last week also stupid & apparently your DULL brain can't retain or comprehend it:
Adblocking hosts does makes up for any small hit I have in a missed lookup (ONLY sub 4% of the time here too no less since I have my favorite sites I spend 95% of my time online @ are resolved immediately) which is INFINITESMAL in a parse of even a HUGE hosts like mine (which almost nobody will have as it took me decades to build to that size as a test) compared to ad loads on pages (even if they are a 'miss' for me locally cached in RAM via hosts) which hosts adblocking gains for users of them dumbass...
APK
P.S.=> You ILLITERALLY trying to "move the goalposts" to DNS from AdBlock earlier here though? STUPID & "backfired" on you due to your illiteracy... apk
you know nothing about how network stacks work - by Coren22
Coren22 hosts ARE networking https://hardware.slashdot.org/... & I create tools for it - do you? No.
you can only insult and lie - by Coren22
Pot calling the kettle black? Yes-> ahref=https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9380571&cid=52536769/rel=url2html-28707https://slashdot.org/comments....> where you tell a lie about me & more!
* SEE SUBJECT: Do /.ers like your work? No. You don't HAVE any.
"serious read comprehension issue on your side - by Coren22
Hypocrite Coren22 moving goalposts where I show addons = slower vs. hosts (THE TOPIC THERE) + far less efficient & less abilities by far vs. hosts, & then you changing TO DNS https://hardware.slashdot.org/... ?
(Please!)
APK
P.S.=> Coren22 I demonstrate correct use of bridged setups & done networks + programming FOR THEM & LONGER than you fool?... apk
How do hosts files break Active Directory name resolution Coren22?
APK
P.S.=> I asked that of you & I'd like to know the answer - you evaded answering... apk
"DNS is far superior to hosts files" - by Coren22 ( 1625475 ) on Friday August 26, 2016 @04:25PM (#52777325)
DNS security & resource bloat outshine hosts https://news.slashdot.org/comm... in a dozen++ or so categories with 100's of examples of all those faults?
LMAO - WRONG!
Calling out to a remote DNS adds more resolution time than a locally cached hosts file (using favorites @ the TOP of it as I do where users spend 95++% of their time) & IF locally installed DNS you use TONS more RAM + moving parts complexity for breakdown (& exploit which that link has tons of examples of happening to DNS) + power usage!
APK
P.S.=>
"hosts file will break AD name resolution" - by Coren22 ( 1625475 ) on Friday August 26, 2016 @04:25PM (#52777325)
Again - how do hosts 'break name resolution' of AD as you stated too? You evading answering that as you troll me as usual off topic...apk
See subject & your further lies you can't backup - I was on topic regarding INTEL contributions to Linux (they're #1 from the corporate world according to THIS source -> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/26/linux_at_25/ & what did YOU contribute on topic? ZERO!):
"APK, I have done so much more than you" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Thursday August 11, 2016 @12:19PM (#52684621)
Coren22 what commercialware's your code as mine's is? Does malwarebytes host + recommend your work as mine currently is? What trade show did your work do well in like mine? What books, magazines, newspapers articles in computer science feature your work like I've done? You say you've done more in middle school. Ok, what was that? You should just admit you're a lying "ne'er-do-well" bigmouth that can't backup his blowhard bs, lmao!
THEN there's these lies I busted you in attempting to "cut me down" with this crap too-> https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9380571&cid=52536769/ & I have so many tech fails of yours vs. myself it's unbelievable!
QUESTION as to your latest/greatest blunder: You keep avoiding telling us how hosts "break AD"? Well - how do they do THAT??
(You'll run due to your continual FURTHER tech mistakes as you have already, lol...)
APK
P.S.=> See subject & this bs from you starting up hassles (because it bugs you I can crush you with ease every single time noob bs artist liar):
https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9572451&cid=52775867/
Who posted that crap that's off topic hmmm? YOU did... apk