Pricing is definitely a problem, Intel's enterprise SSDs actually cheaper and as you noted deliver MUCH higher endurance. Using TLC NAND should result in pretty significant cost reductions but those don't seem to be apparent.
I think Intel's SSDs have much poorer write performance, though? But yeah, forget performance. SATA 3 is more than enough for now. They should be trying to push prices to under $0.5/GB instead.
I don't think that its the case, but even if it were the reliability of tlc is exponentially worse than slc or mlc. I wouldn't be worried about a tlc drive in most cases the controller along with overprovisioning mitigates the risks.
On Tom's Hardware the reviewer calculated that the normalized value of the wear leveling count SMART parameter reaches 1% at 3181 P/E cycles. Therefore, the rated 600 TB write endurance likely implies it's with random data, as assuming a write amplification of 1x (ie with 100% sequential data) 1024 GB of raw NAND capacity and 3181 P/E cycles the drive should be able to withstand 3+ PB of writes.
Well...what's "average" use? There is no such thing. For a server use case where the application is more write heavy than it'll be fine. For an extremely write heavy database....perhaps not. It all depends.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
11 Comments
Back to Article
blanarahul - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link
So, this doesn't have Turbo-Write, right?npaladin2000 - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link
The write endurance on this is atrocious. non-enterprise MLC gets better than 600 TB on a 900+ GB drive!LtGoonRush - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link
Pricing is definitely a problem, Intel's enterprise SSDs actually cheaper and as you noted deliver MUCH higher endurance. Using TLC NAND should result in pretty significant cost reductions but those don't seem to be apparent.ImSpartacus - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link
We can only hope that prices will swiftly drop shortly after release.Krysto - Wednesday, June 4, 2014 - link
I think Intel's SSDs have much poorer write performance, though? But yeah, forget performance. SATA 3 is more than enough for now. They should be trying to push prices to under $0.5/GB instead.hojnikb - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link
Yeah but this is TLC, which translates to 3x reduction of write cycles..hpglow - Tuesday, June 3, 2014 - link
I don't think that its the case, but even if it were the reliability of tlc is exponentially worse than slc or mlc. I wouldn't be worried about a tlc drive in most cases the controller along with overprovisioning mitigates the risks.Solid State Brain - Wednesday, June 4, 2014 - link
On Tom's Hardware the reviewer calculated that the normalized value of the wear leveling count SMART parameter reaches 1% at 3181 P/E cycles. Therefore, the rated 600 TB write endurance likely implies it's with random data, as assuming a write amplification of 1x (ie with 100% sequential data) 1024 GB of raw NAND capacity and 3181 P/E cycles the drive should be able to withstand 3+ PB of writes.Of course, it all depends on the workload.
Krysto - Wednesday, June 4, 2014 - link
Can TLC last 10 years with average use? Or is it more like 5 at best?Silenus - Wednesday, June 4, 2014 - link
Well...what's "average" use? There is no such thing. For a server use case where the application is more write heavy than it'll be fine. For an extremely write heavy database....perhaps not. It all depends.Silenus - Wednesday, June 4, 2014 - link
bah, meant for a READ heavy app it would be fine.