Thursday, March 4th 2010

G.Skill Shows off SandForce-powered Phoenix Series SSDs

G.Skill showed off its newest line of solid state drives under the Phoenix series, at CeBIT. The SSDs come in capacities of 50 GB, 100 GB, and 200 GB, and in the 2.5" form-factor with SATA 3 Gb/s interface. Its USP is the SandForce SF-1200 SSD controller. With its MLC NAND chips, the controller can churn out transfer speeds of 200 MB/s read, and 141 MB/s write. When used with Windows 7 operating system, the SSDs offer TRIM support, a feature which uses idle time to erase deleted data which could otherwise consume many write cycles, also working towards reducing data fragmentation. The company will release these drives to the market soon.
Add your own comment

14 Comments on G.Skill Shows off SandForce-powered Phoenix Series SSDs

#1
Reefer86
with all the companys introducing their new lines of SSD's they are all cutting out the 16/32/64 gb drives and going for the high capacity 100gb/200gb. Which would lead me to believe that we should see a price drop very soon.
Posted on Reply
#2
Tannhäuser
Erasing deleted data? So file reconstruction after a partition-crash will be a no-go in the future?
Posted on Reply
#3
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: Tannhäuser
Erasing deleted data? So file reconstruction after a partition-crash will be a no-go in the future?
Unlike with magnetic storage (such as HDDs and tapes), where a recorded region of the disk/tape can simply be overwritten with data, flash storage requires the system to do an erase operation over data that's deleted. Write cycles are wasted in this. What TRIM does is it simply makes deleted files disappear, and then when the system is idle (or when 'real' empty disk space is finished), perform those erase operations.

If that "partition crash" is caused by a volume-wide erase operation, then no, your data can't be recovered.
Posted on Reply
#4
mk_ln
there was a review on Anandtech that showed his SandForce based SSD died after about 2 weeks use :o
Posted on Reply
#5
DirectorC
Keep all of your important data backed up at all times. Every new document you make that you can't get back you should always save to a secondary source. Or have a backup setup, or a RAID1 or RAID5 the way things are these days. I'm tired of people losing crucial data--try implementing backups or fault tolerance and we won't have this problem anymore.
Posted on Reply
#6
mk_ln
by: DirectorC
Keep all of your important data backed up at all times. Every new document you make that you can't get back you should always save to a secondary source. Or have a backup setup, or a RAID1 or RAID5 the way things are these days. I'm tired of people losing crucial data--try implementing backups or fault tolerance and we won't have this problem anymore.
while that IS definitely important, it is reasonable to expect a drive to NOT fail w/in that short (2 weeks) time frame.
Posted on Reply
#7
pantherx12
by: mk_ln
while that IS definitely important, it is reasonable to expect a drive to NOT fail w/in that short (2 weeks) time frame.
Shit happens.

True story.
Posted on Reply
#8
mk_ln
by: pantherx12
Shit happens.

True story.
lol, while that IS a true story, I don't think that it's unreasonable to expect the drive to function as expected. Also, using the more costly SF1500 controller (enterprise version), it is not acceptable that the drive fail in 2 weeks.
Posted on Reply
#9
pantherx12
Sure it is, things fail all the time, sometimes I buy brand new hardware and it turns up completely dead.

Its why hardware comes with warranties just incase you do get a dud or one that develops problems early : ]
Posted on Reply
#10
mk_ln
by: pantherx12
Sure it is, things fail all the time, sometimes I buy brand new hardware and it turns up completely dead.

Its why hardware comes with warranties just incase you do get a dud or one that develops problems early : ]
wow, with that mentality, it makes no sense whatsoever to get a highly reputed reliable product over a known to fail product as long as it has a warranty. i.e. even with the seagate 7200.11 series which are known to fail prematurely, i suppose you'd take that since it is covered by a 5 year(?) warranty vs. the WD blue series (3 year warranty) even though they, as said in many forums, seem to be more prone to failure than the WD drives? I would rather have a shorter warranty and NOT have to use it as opposed to having a longer warranty and actually using it. but hey, i suppose thats just me.
Posted on Reply
#11
pantherx12
by: mk_ln
wow, with that mentality, it makes no sense whatsoever to get a highly reputed reliable product over a known to fail product as long as it has a warranty.
Yeah if you completely misunderstand what I was saying, if something has a high failure rate of course I wouldn't buy it.

How ever yes I often buy from "lesser" companies and never have any problems, I buy the product that suits my needs Brand doesn't even come into my buying decision.
Posted on Reply
#12
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
Yeah I noticed that too, not that I minded the "memory" sizes, but I like the even 0's :)
Posted on Reply
#13
mk_ln
by: pantherx12
Yeah if you completely misunderstand what I was saying, if something has a high failure rate of course I wouldn't buy it.

How ever yes I often buy from "lesser" companies and never have any problems, I buy the product that suits my needs Brand doesn't even come into my buying decision.
Hm, perhaps it was your previous replies have made it seem like you prefer high failure products; it was just odd that your other reply was that it IS unreasonable to expect a drive to function as expected -

by: mk_ln
...I don't think that it's unreasonable to expect the drive to function as expected. Also, using the more costly SF1500 controller (enterprise version), it is not acceptable that the drive fail in 2 weeks.
by: pantherx12
Sure it is, things fail all the time, sometimes I buy brand new hardware and it turns up completely dead.
...
Posted on Reply
#14
pantherx12
I'll give you that " sure it is" was certainly the wrong set of words to use!
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment