World's first 6 TB SSD is expected to go on sale at some point this summer with 15nm MLC flash - Polidicks

[url]http://www.geek.com/chips/worlds-first-6tb-ssd-will-be-available-to-buy-in-july-1622377/[/url] [quote=Geek.com]If you want terabytes of storage inside your PC or laptop, then the traditional hard drive is still the obvious choice. 6TB drives are now common, and 8TB and even 10TB drives are set to arrive and go mainstream very soon. They’ll also cost significantly less than even a 1TB SSD. However, that doesn’t mean we aren’t getting larger SSDs, and the world’s first 6TB SSD is set to launch in July. Japanese manufacturer Fixstars is planning 3 new 2.5-inch SSDs carrying the names 1000M, 3000M, and 6000M. The 1000M and 3000M models will use 19nm flash memory, a 6Gbps interface, and offer 1TB and 3TB of storage respectively. It’s the 6000M SSD that’s the most interesting, though. It will use 15nm flash memory to offer 6TB of storage while retaining the 2.5-inch drive footprint. Read speeds are expected to be 540MB/s and write speeds of 520MB/s, which is typical of any high-end 6Gbps SATA SSD today.[/quote]

Well I don't quite feel like selling my organs, so i'll probably not get this.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;47694950]Well I don't quite feel like selling my organs, so i'll probably not get this.[/QUOTE] The key is selling someone else's organs.

Now is it affordable? Even for a single TB.

So it's still on a Sata3 connection. A bit disappointing.

Aren't SSDs a less reliable than HDDs? Or is it better than it was?

[QUOTE=Xubs;47695229]Are you willing to pay $500-800 USD for storage? When 1TB of SSD is $500~ baseline while 6TB of HD space is $250? If that doesn't sound affordable to you, then no. Still best to buy small and dual it with a hard drive if you want to get in on solid state this early. I don't think this announcement is going to change that, at least not yet. Especially since their announced price for the initial release of the baseline 1TB model from these guys, Fixstars, is $820.[/QUOTE] Kind of a downer that Microsoft didn't optimize ReadyCache on win8 and upwards so it can use a fast SSD of any size as speedy cache, and a big and spacy hdd as long-term data storage. Atleast Linux has [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bcache"]bcache[/URL], but it's slightly tricky to implement and install your distro on. [editline]10th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=KnightVista;47695253]Aren't SSDs a less reliable than HDDs? Or is it better than it was?[/QUOTE] They're FAR more shock resistant, but SSD's have a finite amount of writes every flash module can handle before they're almost guaranteed to crap out.

[QUOTE=Van-man;47695254]writes every flash module can handle before they're almost guaranteed to crap out.[/QUOTE] Nearly the same about any mechanical parts of a hard drive. But SSD's will most likely last years/decades before you wear them out as a normal user.

[QUOTE=Van-man;47695254]They're FAR more shock resistant, but SSD's have a finite amount of writes every flash module can handle before they're almost guaranteed to crap out.[/QUOTE] I recall TechRadar(?) doing a test where they wrote data to 3 SSD's constantly for 2 years. They lasted well past their written write counts and given that, they were using SSD's from 3 or so years ago. Things are probably much better now. I'll try and find a source. EDIT: My mistake, it was from TechReport. [URL="http://techreport.com/review/26523/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-casualties-on-the-way-to-a-petabyte"]Here's the article[/URL]. 3 SSD's got writes of 1PB worth.

[QUOTE=Coolboy;47695315]Nearly the same about any mechanical parts of a hard drive. But SSD's will most likely last years/decades before you wear them out as a normal user.[/QUOTE] The thing that kills most HDD's are spin-up and spin-down, keep 'em running at a constant smooth pace and they'll last decades unless they're cheapass home-grade ones.

waste of money for anyone willing to spend that much in an SSD considering the dumb as bricks SataIII bottle neck

[QUOTE=.Lain;47695341]waste of money for anyone willing to spend that much in an SSD considering the dumb as bricks SataIII bottle neck[/QUOTE] I want to buy a big, fast PCI-E SSD. Too bad they cost about as much as a car here: [url]http://www.verkkokauppa.com/fi/product/47846/dsvxj/OCZ-Z-Drive-R4-RM88-PCI-Express-SSD-3-2-TB-SSD-kovalevy-PCI[/url]

[QUOTE=Van-man;47695254]Kind of a downer that Microsoft didn't optimize ReadyCache on win8 and upwards so it can use a fast SSD of any size as speedy cache, and a big and spacy hdd as long-term data storage. Atleast Linux has [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bcache"]bcache[/URL], but it's slightly tricky to implement and install your distro on. [editline]10th May 2015[/editline] They're FAR more shock resistant, but SSD's have a finite amount of writes every flash module can handle before they're almost guaranteed to crap out.[/QUOTE] A ludicrous amount of writes though. [url]http://techreport.com/review/27062/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-only-two-remain-after-1-5pb[/url] And it only gets better with larger SSDs.

[QUOTE=El_Jameo;47695325]I recall TechRadar(?) doing a test where they wrote data to 3 SSD's constantly for 2 years. They lasted well past their written write counts and given that, they were using SSD's from 3 or so years ago. Things are probably much better now. I'll try and find a source. EDIT: My mistake, it was from TechReport. [URL="http://techreport.com/review/26523/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-casualties-on-the-way-to-a-petabyte"]Here's the article[/URL]. 3 SSD's got writes of 1PB worth.[/QUOTE] During one of our lectures it's been stated that SSD failure rate on average is 2 million hours of usage, which is half a million more than that of a HDD, its just that manufacturers arent really confident in their product and also take room for error, hence they write that 5-10 years is the max guaranteed time frame to work with SSD reliably. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I was sleeping half the lecture.

[QUOTE=El_Jameo;47695325]I recall TechRadar(?) doing a test where they wrote data to 3 SSD's constantly for 2 years. They lasted well past their written write counts and given that, they were using SSD's from 3 or so years ago. Things are probably much better now. I'll try and find a source. EDIT: My mistake, it was from TechReport. [URL="http://techreport.com/review/26523/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-casualties-on-the-way-to-a-petabyte"]Here's the article[/URL]. 3 SSD's got writes of 1PB worth.[/QUOTE] You have to realize how OEMs test these figures. They grab a very large batch and write to them constantly, wait for one to crap out, then average the life span on all of them. Meanwhile the ones that survive will still chug on for a super long time

Hopefully prices start to go down.

If it was affordable, I'd totally go for it. I have a Samsung 850 EVO 250 GB SSD as my main OS drive. Even on an improper SATA controller (AMD motherboards are Russian roulette on their ACHI/SATA controllers), it is so incredibly fast that it literally breaks my train of thought when Chrome opens instantaneously, instead of 10-20 seconds later like I'm used to. I could never go back to a HDD OS drive, I'm spoiled already.

[QUOTE=nagachief;47695911]If it was affordable, I'd totally go for it. I have a Samsung 850 EVO 250 GB SSD as my main OS drive. Even on an improper SATA controller (AMD motherboards are Russian roulette on their ACHI/SATA controllers), it is so incredibly fast that it literally breaks my train of thought when Chrome opens instantaneously, instead of 10-20 seconds later like I'm used to. I could never go back to a HDD OS drive, I'm spoiled already.[/QUOTE] Going from "Wellp had to restart my PC, better go make a sandwich while it boots" to "Wellp had to restart my PC, better go make a sand-oh it's done, cool" is a pretty awesome thing, though.

[QUOTE=Van-man;47695254]Kind of a downer that Microsoft didn't optimize ReadyCache on win8 and upwards so it can use a fast SSD of any size as speedy cache, and a big and spacy hdd as long-term data storage. Atleast Linux has [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bcache"]bcache[/URL], but it's slightly tricky to implement and install your distro on. [editline]10th May 2015[/editline] They're FAR more shock resistant, but SSD's have a finite amount of writes every flash module can handle before they're almost guaranteed to crap out.[/QUOTE] isn't the write cycle high enough that it shouldn't really matter?

[QUOTE=Van-man;47695332]The thing that kills most HDD's are spin-up and spin-down, keep 'em running at a constant smooth pace and they'll last decades unless they're cheapass home-grade ones.[/QUOTE] So the only thing that really matters is capacity & price vs speed concerning digital storage.

My SSD just completely died after only 2 years. It was a cheapo one bought online of course. I switched back to a regular HDD and it is soooooo fucking sloooow. I can't wait until SSDs are more affordable. On the plus side I was able to get GTA5 though.

I'm looking to upgrade my PC, can someone explain why people get an ssd and an HDD?

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47697302]I'm looking to upgrade my PC, can someone explain why people get an ssd and an HDD?[/QUOTE] Put stuff that needs to load fast (ie games, OS, etc.) on the SSD (faster, less capacity/cost), and store other files on the HDD (slower, more capacity/cost).

[QUOTE=Van-man;47695332]The thing that kills most HDD's are spin-up and spin-down, keep 'em running at a constant smooth pace and they'll last decades unless they're cheapass home-grade ones.[/QUOTE] It's not reasonable to expect the average home user to keep their PC on 24/7. SSDs are far more practical and reliable technology for the average user. They're also priced unreasonably for the average home user, unfortunately.

[QUOTE=Van-man;47695254] They're FAR more shock resistant, but SSD's have a finite amount of writes every flash module can handle before they're almost guaranteed to crap out.[/QUOTE] This is the only reason I've not gotten an SSD. All this talk about the read/write limit has me concerned? (lack of a better word) If I'm going to get an SSD, I want to be assured that its going to last me 5 years at least with constant read/writes from heavy game usage.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;47697743]This is the only reason I've not gotten an SSD. All this talk about the read/write limit has me concerned? (lack of a better word) If I'm going to get an SSD, I want to be assured that its going to last me 5 years at least with constant read/writes from heavy game usage.[/QUOTE] [url=http://us.hardware.info/reviews/4178/hardwareinfo-tests-lifespan-of-samsung-ssd-840-250gb-tlc-ssd-updated-with-final-conclusion]Here's a torture test of the Samsung 840[/url]. Their conclusion is that read/write cycles weren't the bottleneck. On that alone they predicted that the SSD would last 75 years for the average user. They wrote about 750TB of data to the drives before they died. Obviously an SSD will die long before 75 years so normal wear and tear is what kills them, not read/write cycles.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47697697]It's not reasonable to expect the average home user to keep their PC on 24/7. SSDs are far more practical and reliable technology for the average user. They're also priced unreasonably for the average home user, unfortunately.[/QUOTE] I know that, but it's popular to use cheap drives in exotic RAID setup's since they're easily replaced and even cheap drives often have 3 years warranties now.

My 1TB sdd was only $450 when I bought it and it's even cheaper now ([url]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00OBRFFAS/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1[/url]) The read and write speeds are the same so why is the price so inflated for the 1tb?

[QUOTE=Pine Cone;47698288]My 1TB sdd was only $450 when I bought it and it's even cheaper now ([url]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00OBRFFAS/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1[/url]) The read and write speeds are the same so why is the price so inflated for the 1tb?[/QUOTE] The price isn't inflated, the 1TB uses 4 more flash chips than the 500GB version.

[QUOTE=Chryseus;47698336]The price isn't inflated, the 1TB uses 4 more flash chips than the 500GB version.[/QUOTE] So, what's the benefit in that for spending the extra $400~ for their 1tb drive if the speeds are the same as a Samsung or Crucial drive that's half the price?