Comments Locked

20 Comments

Back to Article

  • versesuvius - Saturday, April 1, 2017 - link

    "$10, $20 and $30 for 120 GB, 240 GB and 480 GB versions of the Ultimate SU700 SSDs"

    Really?
  • Valantar - Saturday, April 1, 2017 - link

    If that's true, I'll take five. At least. Probably more.

    On a more serious note: placeholder text that mistakenly got left in the published article?
  • versesuvius - Saturday, April 1, 2017 - link

    It probably had more to do with the date of the article :)
  • ImSpartacus - Sunday, April 2, 2017 - link

    And $300 for the 1TB version, because that's why we can't have nice things.
  • vladx - Saturday, April 1, 2017 - link

    In the table it says " DRAM Buffer: Yes capacity unknown" while the text above it says MK8115 is DRAM-less. What is it in the end?
  • DanNeely - Sunday, April 2, 2017 - link

    "does not require" implies optional, not can't use. While it could be an error, I'd assume ADATA is using the optional DRAM on this tier of drive for better performance.
  • vladx - Sunday, April 2, 2017 - link

    Well the article states "The ADATA Ultimate SU700 drives appear to be one the first retail SSDs featuring the MK8115 without onboard DRAM."

    Seems like an error either way to me.
  • Magichands8 - Saturday, April 1, 2017 - link

    Ah yes, it's yet another SSD release featuring low capacity, ridiculously high priced drives complete with built-in performance bottlenecks. I know, the official prices haven't been released yet but I already know what they will be and they will be unacceptable. Now waiting for other readers to chime in to tell me that things are great in SSD world and prices keep coming down. At least they got the form factor right.
  • eat_those_lemons - Friday, June 9, 2017 - link

    Can you explain your opinion more?
  • Samus - Sunday, April 2, 2017 - link

    "All that being said, one of the key features that Maxiotek advertises about its MK8115 is the fact that it does not require additional onboard DRAM, thus allowing saving a few cents on the SSD bill of materials. "

    My thoughts exactly. Why are companies so hesitant to spend a dollar on a piece of DRAM? Am I missing something. Does it make the drive less reliable in the case it doesn't have in flight data protection (capacitors) or are they just being that cheap?
  • Lolimaster - Sunday, April 2, 2017 - link

    They could save more money simply reducing the size of 2.5" drives and make them more of a square (volume shipping costs down, more item at the same area).

    Pretty much in al 2.5" SSD's we see 1/3 of the horizontal space filled with nothing.
  • DanNeely - Monday, April 3, 2017 - link

    If they make the enclosure shorter it won't work right with retention systems (screwed in or various clips). The screw holes are placed very near the corners on a standard sized drive.
  • BrokenCrayons - Monday, April 3, 2017 - link

    I think 2.5 inch drives are going away anyhow in favor of M.2 for SSDs which would already hold down shipping and packaging costs.
  • fanofanand - Monday, April 3, 2017 - link

    I think you are right, less cables, cleaner looking installs, less impeding airflow, M.2 is certainly the way of the future.
  • Magichands8 - Tuesday, April 4, 2017 - link

    I guess that's fine if you need a low capacity SSD for a mobile system. Those of us with real full fledged computers however are interested in real capacity and capacity that can expand. In that scenario M.2 is useless. They keep releasing M.2 SSDs so I suppose somebody must be buying them I just can't figure out why unless it's for an ultra book or other small form factor laptop. As for space and airflow you can already mount 2.5" form factor SSDs in out of the way places such as flat against one side of a case. And if you are interested in M.2 then you aren't going to care much about capacity in the first place so you wouldn't have to be concerned with the ability to mount multiple 2.5" SSDs in such a case anyway. As for me I couldn't care less about how pretty it looks on the inside and certainly wouldn't want to cripple my options for expansion and performance improvements just to avoid having to plug something in with a cable. But to each their own.

    And if M.2 is the way of the future I don't think that way will last very long after Intel/AMD start shipping stacked memory on their CPUs. After all, that solution will be far more compact still and better suited to the niche use-case that some people seem interested in using M.2 for anyway.
  • Rocket321 - Monday, April 3, 2017 - link

    Two screws would be plenty, these drives are paper light and don't need the full retention that a spinning metal platter based HDD needed.
  • DanNeely - Monday, April 3, 2017 - link

    2 screws might be enough in a stack of trays; but in an open cage it leaves way too much room for them to move vertically.
  • SanX - Wednesday, April 5, 2017 - link

    Who need all that now completely obsolete junk after Samsung made 3.5GB/s PCIe drives?
    Plus do your math: MTBF 2 million hours is just 4 years. Total waste of money
  • vladx - Wednesday, April 5, 2017 - link

    Sorry to break to you but 99% of the users don't need PCIe SSDs.
  • watzupken - Sunday, April 9, 2017 - link

    M.2 SSDs probably are more suited for scenarios where there is space constraints, i.e. laptop/ Ultrabooks. I believe most desktop SSD users are still on 2.5 inch form factor as there are plenty of SATA 3 ports, as oppose to typically only 1 M.2 slot on the motherboard.

    Anyway, I feel the low end SSD market is way too saturated. Too many different brands and models that are based on the same controller, trying to vie for the cheapest spot by cutting all corners, e.g. in this case, they are cutting out the RAM to save a few bucks.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now