Thursday, May 21st 2020

Sabrent Launches World's First 8 Terabyte M.2 NVMe SSD

Sabrent, a company focused on making storage devices and PC accessories, today announced the release of the world's first 8 terabyte NVMe SSD delivered in the M.2 form factor. The new SSD dubbed Rocket Q 8 TB NVMe PCIe M.2 SSD is a real treat for all SSD enthusiasts. Besides its staggering capacity, it has plenty of features as well. Built on top of 3D QLC NAND Flash memory chips, the Rocket Q SSD is supposed to deliver very high speeds on PCIe 3.0 x4 bus. With up to 3.4 GB/sec reads, and up to 3 GB/sec writes, the SSD is pushing the limits of the PCIe 3.0 x4 bus that it is designed to work for.

Rocking a Phison's E12S controller, it is supposed to maintain high speeds even on random 4K reads and writes. The company didn't reveal too many details about the performance, however, we can wait for some reviews. The SSD is PCIe 3.1 Compliant, NVMe 1.3 Compliant, and supports SMART and TRIM commands. With a purchase of this SSD, you get a free copy of Sabrent Acronis True Image for Sabrent Software for easy cloning. Pricing and availability are unknown.
Sabrent Rocket Q 8 TB NVMe PCIe M.2 SSD Sabrent Rocket Q 8 TB NVMe PCIe M.2 SSD
Source: TweakTown
Add your own comment

36 Comments on Sabrent Launches World's First 8 Terabyte M.2 NVMe SSD

#1
silentbogo
That was quick. Probably off-the-shelf Phison design that they showed off at CES earlier this year.
Posted on Reply
#2
londiste
Sabrent has the 4TB M.2 as their previous claim to fame, at $900.
QLC in this one is probably not a price question but a density one and the price of this drive will be north of $1500.

Edit:
4TB Rocket Q is $759. 8TB will be twice that and probably a bit more.
Posted on Reply
#3
Assimilator
AFAIK the only 4TB consumer SSDs are SATA, so double the capacity in the far smaller M.2 form-factor is seriously impressive. This is what we need to kill hard drives for good.

Now just work on the pricing, Sabrent.
Posted on Reply
#4
AnarchoPrimitiv
Assimilator
AFAIK the only 4TB consumer SSDs are SATA, so double the capacity in the far smaller M.2 form-factor is seriously impressive. This is what we need to kill hard drives for good.

Now just work on the pricing, Sabrent.
Nope, Sabrent has had a 4TB TLC m.2 NVMe drive for a while now (pretty cool they did it with TLC instead of QLC NAND) .... Am I the only one regularly making dream builds on Newegg and thus staying up to date on the most current hardware?
Posted on Reply
#5
kapone32
I seriously hope they price this right and it hopes to make all other NVME drives more viable, especially since it is PCIe 3.0.
Posted on Reply
#6
Dejan20
AnarchoPrimitiv
Nope, Sabrent has had a 4TB TLC m.2 NVMe drive for a while now (pretty cool they did it with TLC instead of QLC NAND) .... Am I the only one regularly making dream builds on Newegg and thus staying up to date on the most current hardware?
Nope. I keep up to date also like that but not on Newegg. Glad I'm not the only one. But strangely I found about 4 TB NVMe a month ago. And besides one from Samsung this is the only 4 TB M.2. Considering that this is consumer drive and how rare this drives are I thought it would be easier to find about them.
Posted on Reply
#7
Chrispy_
The endurance on some of these QLC models makes me nervous. QLC models typically have TBW endurance ratings around 300x their capacity. that works out at 0.15 DWPD which is terrifying on a $1000+ product.
Posted on Reply
#8
Nater
Awesome, but going to be a niche product initially. So much cheaper/faster to just throw a bunch of small capacity drives on a PCIe card no?
Posted on Reply
#9
Valantar
kapone32
I seriously hope they price this right and it hopes to make all other NVME drives more viable, especially since it is PCIe 3.0.
What would the "right" price for something like this be in your opinion? Anything below $1500 would be borderline miraculous after all, so it's going to cost the same as a midrange gaming PC no matter what.
Posted on Reply
#10
kapone32
Valantar
What would the "right" price for something like this be in your opinion? Anything below $1500 would be borderline miraculous after all, so it's going to cost the same as a midrange gaming PC no matter what.
I am getting at exactly what you are saying. I want to see this in the $600 to $900 range. I want to see the trend change from having to pay more per GB as capacity goes up for NVME based SSDs. I also want to see the end of 240 to 512 GB NVME drives and if they price this right it could force prices down.
Posted on Reply
#11
londiste
AnarchoPrimitiv
Nope, Sabrent has had a 4TB TLC m.2 NVMe drive for a while now (pretty cool they did it with TLC instead of QLC NAND)
They have both TLC and QLC. Rocket is TLC and Rocket Q is QLC.
Prices of these at $900 and $760 are closer than I'd like to see.
www.sabrent.com/product/SB-ROCKET-4TB/4tb-rocket-nvme-pcie-m-2-2280-internal-ssd-high-performance-solid-state-drive/
www.sabrent.com/product/SB-RKTQ-4TB/rocket-q-4tb-nvme-pcie-m-2-2280-internal-ssd-high-performance-solid-state-drive/
Posted on Reply
#12
windwhirl
For some reason, I thought that was already done before. Color me surprised.
AnarchoPrimitiv
Am I the only one regularly making dream builds on Newegg and thus staying up to date on the most current hardware?
You're not alone there :D
Posted on Reply
#13
Valantar
kapone32
I am getting at exactly what you are saying. I want to see this in the $600 to $900 range. I want to see the trend change from having to pay more per GB as capacity goes up for NVME based SSDs. I also want to see the end of 240 to 512 GB NVME drives and if they price this right it could force prices down.
That's not going to happen. While I'm not at all suggesting that the NAND industry is entirely devoid of the price fixing and other crap that we've seen in the DRAM industry, you're still looking at a silicon lithography production process and thus a more or less 1:1 relation between increased capacity and increased silicon area, which means that there's no "volume pricing" for flash storage. HDDs have dropping $/GB as you move up in capacity (up to a point) because you're moving away price-wise from a relatively high baseline hardware cost (motor, actuators, electronics) that are common to all HDDs while the only additional cost is a couple more platters or slightly denser platters - which are relatively cheap. (This of course reverses itself when you hit the point where you need either exotic production methods or cutting-edge, ultra-dense platters etc.) The only thing that can bring about lower prices for flash storage is denser technologies (whether through storing more bits per cell or through ever higher 3D stacking) or cheaper production (which generally means lower density, so it won't help). As such, higher capacity flash storage will always have a >=1:1 price relation to its cheaper variants. The only reason why 512GB-1TB drives now often cost less than lower capacity variants is through higher sales volume (i.e. manufacturer rebates) and other economies of scale that don't translate down to lower volume lower capacity models. But these don't make enough of a difference to drive down prices of high capacity units noticeably. Unlike HDDs, where the most expensive part of the drive is something every drive needs, the most expensive part of an SSD is the flash itself, so you will never see the same type of price scaling.
Posted on Reply
#14
kapone32
Valantar
That's not going to happen. While I'm not at all suggesting that the NAND industry is entirely devoid of the price fixing and other crap that we've seen in the DRAM industry, you're still looking at a silicon lithography production process and thus a more or less 1:1 relation between increased capacity and increased silicon area, which means that there's no "volume pricing" for flash storage. HDDs have dropping $/GB as you move up in capacity (up to a point) because you're moving away price-wise from a relatively high baseline hardware cost (motor, actuators, electronics) that are common to all HDDs while the only additional cost is a couple more platters or slightly denser platters - which are relatively cheap. (This of course reverses itself when you hit the point where you need either exotic production methods or cutting-edge, ultra-dense platters etc.) The only thing that can bring about lower prices for flash storage is denser technologies (whether through storing more bits per cell or through ever higher 3D stacking) or cheaper production (which generally means lower density, so it won't help). As such, higher capacity flash storage will always have a >=1:1 price relation to its cheaper variants. The only reason why 512GB-1TB drives now often cost less than lower capacity variants is through higher sales volume (i.e. manufacturer rebates) and other economies of scale that don't translate down to lower volume lower capacity models. But these don't make enough of a difference to drive down prices of high capacity units noticeably. Unlike HDDs, where the most expensive part of the drive is something every drive needs, the most expensive part of an SSD is the flash itself, so you will never see the same type of price scaling.
Totally agreed on that point of 1:1 from SLC to even TLC. We are seeing the density increase though as putting 8TB on a 2280 PCB seemed impossible but QLC and beyond (Not saying that speed and endurance are not a worry) allows for that. As density increases it should drive the price per GB on NAND down. For me there is no reason that the Intel 665P should be more expensive than the 660P. The price surtax on NVME is already here anyway as some Seagate 1TB NVME are the same price as an ADATA SX8200 2TB and don't even let me talk about Samsung's pricing.
Posted on Reply
#15
R0H1T
londiste
Prices of these at $900 and $760 are closer than I'd like to see.
That's because QLC isn't as cheap as (many) others think, also not as unreliable as they assume.
Posted on Reply
#16
trparky
kapone32
and don't even let me talk about Samsung's pricing.
What do you mean? If Samsung makes good drives, shouldn't they be able to charge what they choose to charge?
Posted on Reply
#17
kapone32
trparky
What do you mean? If Samsung makes good drives, shouldn't they be able to charge what they choose to charge?
Samsung is not the only company that makes good drives.

www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=179_1927_1930&item_id=135646

www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=179_1927_1930&item_id=133813

Adata 1 TB $219 Cad vs Samsung 970 Evo 1 TB $349.99 on sale.

But the 500GB is 189.99 so pay $30 more for another 500GB

www.canadacomputers.com/product_info.php?cPath=179_1927_1930&item_id=135645
Posted on Reply
#18
trparky
I've heard of AData SSDs but to perfectly honest, they really need to quit having so many models already. Suffice it to say, I like Samsung's SSD lineup. Pro = MLC, EVO = TLC. Done. None of this alphabet soup that you have over in the AData lineup. They need to learn that keeping things simple is better.
Posted on Reply
#19
Nater
trparky
I've heard of AData SSDs but to perfectly honest, they really need to quit having so many models already. Suffice it to say, I like Samsung's SSD lineup. Pro = MLC, EVO = TLC. Done. None of this alphabet soup that you have over in the AData lineup. They need to learn that keeping things simple is better.
They definitely are a bit ridiculous...I'd rather have some sort of smart ID system that tells you right away if it's a single or double sided, includes heatsink, height of the drive, etc, as well as the flash type. (some of these options are why there's so many Adata models btw, but u have no idea of knowing which is which from their arbitrary model numbers)
Posted on Reply
#20
thesmokingman
I shudder to think what it will cost once they get the gen4 drives with this same density out. This gen4 8TB array below was already steep. Can you imagine running a 32TB array? roflcoptor

\

Posted on Reply
#21
kapone32
trparky
I've heard of AData SSDs but to perfectly honest, they really need to quit having so many models already. Suffice it to say, I like Samsung's SSD lineup. Pro = MLC, EVO = TLC. Done. None of this alphabet soup that you have over in the AData lineup. They need to learn that keeping things simple is better.
thesmokingman
I shudder to think what it will cost once they get the gen4 drives with this same density out. This gen4 8TB array below was already steep. Can you imagine running a 32TB array? roflcoptor

\


I know what you mean, is that the As Rock Expansion card? I have 2 Asus Expansion cards. If we could get these at a good price it is giving me wet dreams to think that 32TB of NVME in RAID 0 would be double what I currently have. That 10000+ GB/s sequential would be killer. What would be interesting for this drive is how big the SLC cache is on these. I also have a theory that putting NVME drives in RAID 0 also extends endurance.
Posted on Reply
#22
thesmokingman
kapone32
I know what you mean, is that the As Rock Expansion card? I have 2 Asus Expansion cards. If we could get these at a good price it is giving me wet dreams to think that 32TB of NVME in RAID 0 would be double what I currently have. That 10000+ GB/s sequential would be killer. What would be interesting for this drive is how big the SLC cache is on these. I also have a theory that putting NVME drives in RAID 0 also extends endurance.
That's the Gigabyte AIC bundled with the TRx40 Xtreme. 15GBs sequential is insane, indeed. I've no idea about the endurance. The array will pay for itself in a matter of months, especially since lockdown. The rig has been pressed into constant production since March. But judging from stats I've seen they most likely won't fail or get close to it during the first ownership period. One 8TB gen4 drive will probably run 1.5K, that could be 6K for the array. That's more than most midrange workstation builds lol. It would have been half the cost of the TRx40 build I did last xmas which was a full tilt 32c, 128gb, dual 2080ti production rig.

Posted on Reply
#23
ymbaja
R0H1T
That's because QLC isn't as cheap as (many) others think, also not as unreliable as they assume.
but it is slower ;)
Posted on Reply
#24
robb
good grief it is taking forever for even 4 tb NVME from others to come out. I cant even comprehend how in the hell people build $2500 gaming comps and get by with just 2 tb or even in many cases a pathetic 1 tb drive. I go back and forth in tons of games plus like to benchmark and test games so I have over 5 tb of games installed. and really that is not even half my library but many of the games I dont have installed are older outdated games that are small. I am using a couple of Samsung 860 4 tb SATA drives and really want go NVME soon on my next build but wanting an 8 tb pcie 4 drive so hopefully that will not be too much longer.
Posted on Reply
#25
trparky
Because most of us have smaller, faster, SSD-based storage for our most important programs (operating system and core programs) and leave the rest on spinning rust drives. When we do want to play a game, we're just swap games from the HDD to the SSD and back again. Remember, NTFS supports symbolic links and folder junctions.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment