Alternative distribution to optical disks : SSD, cards, and download*

The mushkin press release only talks about the 2TB Reactor. There is no press release about the 4TB model.

The only other independent report I found which doesn't link to the above...
http://www.overclockers.com/ces-2016-mushkin-unveils-reactor-2tb-ssd-teases-4tb-ssd/

Mushkin will release a new REACTOR 2TB SSD in Q2

Mushkin showed us a prototype with two SM2246 controllers in a RAID configuration. Although there are some performance drawbacks, like a drop in IOPS, the capacity makes it appealing for NAS builds, for example. This could also make it’s way to the market in Q2. The MSRPs have yet to be officially determined, but look for aggressive pricing in the $0.25/GB range.
Click to expand...
 
Re-reading the Techreport article.

The only announced drive thus far is the Reactor 2 TB drive and the more expensive Striker 1920 GB drive. The Reactor is expected in Q2.

There is no naming scheme associated with the 4 TB drive as of yet and it is expected at a "later date" compared to the 2 TB drive. It may end up being the basis of a budget lineup from Mushkin with the Reactor lineup being mainstream while the Striker lineup remains for professional/enthusiast. All the articles are pretty clear on the Mushkin representative stating they are targeting a 500 USD price point for the 4 TB drive.

That seems to make sense as they seem to indicate that the 4 TB drive will be slower than the 2 TB drive. So it's possible the 4 TB drive won't hit until Q3 or Q4 where the Reactor 2 TB will likely drop in price from the launch MSRP (~0.25 USD per GB) with the 4 TB featuring a lower cost per GB than the 2 TB model.

That makes for a more gradual but still pronounced (faster) price drop compared to the trend in SSD prices from last year. All relative, of course, as prices for SSDs dropped quite rapidly last year.

Or you could also be right that the Mushkin representative doesn't have his facts straight and he's giving the 500 USD number for the 4 TB drive when he should be giving it for the 2 TB drive.

Regards,
SB
 
I think it makes sense, because the two technologies between the 2tb and the 4tb drives are going to be vastly different. The 4tb drive tech is substantially cheaper as it scales better. And its going to come out likely 4 to 6 minths later. At least that was my take when I first read the blurb. Could be mistaken on the tech between the 2tb and 4tb being different.
 
It is exactly the same tech. It's two separate 2TB drives (the one announced) in JBOD in a single enclosure, complete with two ssd controllers.

It is slower because it's a linear JBOD which hits the iops..
 
MrFox said:
It is exactly the same tech. It's two separate 2TB drives (the one announced) in JBOD in a single enclosure, complete with two ssd controllers.

It is slower because it's a linear JBOD which hits the iops..
Click to expand...

It should still be many times faster than mechanical drives and the price gets ever closer to mechanical prices. 4TB for $500 will remove the need for mechanical drives in my tower.
 
Well, it definitely wasn't mis-reporting of information.

Anandtech's SSD editor has reiterated that Mushkin is planning to ship the 4 TB SSD at 500 USD.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9986/ces-2016-roundup-total-editor-recall/4

Random access performance takes a dive, however, which likely helps to justify the price point. Hence it wouldn't make for the greatest game drive (probably still worlds better than a HDD), but should make for a fantastic storage and streaming drive for multiple simultaneous access (like a family media center).

Also that means that the flash chips are likely going to be relatively cheap as they'll still need to make a healthy profit on that. I wonder if they'll be using Toshiba's or Micron's 3D NAND? It could line up with both since both are ramping up 3D NAND production greatly in the first half of 2016. Toshiba in particular will have a new plant manufacturing it coming online in the first half of this year.

Regards,
SB
 
Silent_Buddha said:
Random access performance takes a dive, however, which likely helps to justify the price point. Hence it wouldn't make for the greatest game drive (probably still worlds better than a HDD), but should make for a fantastic storage and streaming drive for multiple simultaneous access (like a family media center).
Click to expand...

Given the truly horrible nature of the 5400 rpm laptop drives in current gen consoles, even a relatively poor SSD will be an absolute godsend for consoles that have been mechanically limited since the PS1 / Saturn.

If HD-BR with it's three layers and 75GB (?) of storage is the template for game sizes next gen, then 2~4TB could see us freed from linear game designs created as streaming-tunnels for high quality assets, and texture/lod pop that breaks immersion.

... unless some pencil-pushing desk-jockey bean-counter decides we need a 4TB eMMC with 18 MB/s and 2 IOPS.
 
Give me any SSD with > 8TB and horrendous random-access rates at a good rate and I'll buy it. In fact, as a archive drive for lots of big files that are read linearly, I can't imagine a better compromise in order to bring down costs. Not particularly good for a console though, but we are reaching a point in time when archive drives are hitting limits in capacity, so I imagine there will be a cross-over-point sooner or later when SSD start to jump ahead of mechanical drives in this area as well.
 
Silent_Buddha said:
eMMC, how I hate those 4 letters. eMMC storage might have decent linear transfer, but OMG their random access transfer rates are truly horrendous.

Regards,
SB
Click to expand...

Yup you do not want an eMMC based anything as your O/S drive, for faster than 5400rpm archiving then as Phil says this is viable but for a console hells no.
 
eMMC is designed for very low power consumption, it's for smartphones. It doesn't even provide much cost saving over high performance SSD NAND.
function said:
If HD-BR with it's three layers and 75GB (?) of storage is the template for game sizes next gen, then 2~4TB could see us freed from linear game designs created as streaming-tunnels for high quality assets, and texture/lod pop that breaks immersion.
Click to expand...
UHD bluray is 100GB for 3 layers. They have a new 33GB/layer technique (i-MLSE).

2 or 4TB would be crazy expensive if we consider a console's BOM has $35 for the local storage. I wish, but maybe a tiered storage would make more sense, like a 256GB high speed caching area with a 4TB spinning disk.
 
Last edited:
Yeah even if we got a 128GB SSD with a multi TB mechanical disk it would still be a step change in performance over today. Obviously 256GB would allow for at least two games to live in the cache vs 1 but I'd take the smaller SSD over none or the paltry 8GB that's standard is Hybrids today
 
Gotta agree with lalaland I'm thinking a cache b/w 32GB and 128GB with a mechanical hard drive.

But I could see the cache being Us based as opposed to full SSD but I hope I'm wrong, I would expect the game data to be compressed within the cache and then decompressed on the fly into Ram so 128GB ought to be enough to cache 2 whole games
 
https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/692510386621452288

Console Digital Only sales increased 34% year over year . 2016 is only going to continue that growth. By the time next generation roles around who needs an optical format.

We will have a $500 4TB SSD Q2 of this year , what will something similar cost in 2018 or so when the next consoles hit for MS or Sony to include inside the box.
 
So you're now saying 2018 for next gen. Can we talk about some cost per gigabyte predictions for 2018?
 
At this rate, waiting until 2021 could allow some really usable capacity for an internal SSD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Shortbread
Next-Generation NVMe SSD and I/O Technology [PC, PS5, XBSX|S]
105 106 107
Replies
2K
Views
217K
Karamazov
K
Back
Top