The performance specs are up quite a bit and the lower sizes are quoted to perform like the larger ones. I wonder if the extra PCIe4.0 lanes really make that much difference, or if there's maybe some memory in the controller now which helps alleviate the lack of dedicated RAM. The previous gen 1TB was quoted at 2300MB/s R 1800MB/s W 390k IOPS RR 200k IOPS RW. It also specified the drive used 3.7W. This gen doesn't mention power consumption. I wonder if it's any worse, or if the improvements in the flash and controller have offset any additional power usage.
Does this company have any record of silently replacing the NAND with something inferior? So many companies have been caught that consumers have to take a lot of specs with a grain of salt.
> A simple two-chip solution on such a large PCB is unremarkable, but it would allow the BG5 to be easily inserted into systems that are designed to take (and typically use) 2280 drives.
Like the WD Blue: practically a 2230 or 2242 drive with a length of blank PCB so it fits 80mm slots.
System builders hardly ever list the speed of the drives that they are using, but having a PCIe 4.0 SSD can be marketed as a feature.
The reason why system builders hardly ever list the speed, or any of the specs for that matter, of the SSD they use, is because they use whatever they can source. In fact, system builders will straight up use slower drives, if their preferred performance drives cannot be sourced. Yes, this absolutely results in magically slower PCs in batch D, despite batches A~C being as fast as review samples.
And since this drive is intended for the OEM market, it's quite obvious that speed is not going to be listed as a key selling point.
No arguement here. I guess it gives them the flexability to only wire up 2x PCI-E v4 lanes and use the other ones for something else. While simultaniously being able to use the same card in older v3 devices without sacrificing performance.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
8 Comments
Back to Article
ballsystemlord - Monday, November 15, 2021 - link
The performance specs are up quite a bit and the lower sizes are quoted to perform like the larger ones. I wonder if the extra PCIe4.0 lanes really make that much difference, or if there's maybe some memory in the controller now which helps alleviate the lack of dedicated RAM.The previous gen 1TB was quoted at 2300MB/s R 1800MB/s W 390k IOPS RR 200k IOPS RW. It also specified the drive used 3.7W. This gen doesn't mention power consumption. I wonder if it's any worse, or if the improvements in the flash and controller have offset any additional power usage.
cyrusfox - Monday, November 15, 2021 - link
Endurance figures? or am I blind, as it is TLC what quality we looking at 600 cycles? 1000? 2000?Oxford Guy - Thursday, November 18, 2021 - link
Does this company have any record of silently replacing the NAND with something inferior? So many companies have been caught that consumers have to take a lot of specs with a grain of salt.twotwotwo - Monday, November 15, 2021 - link
> A simple two-chip solution on such a large PCB is unremarkable, but it would allow the BG5 to be easily inserted into systems that are designed to take (and typically use) 2280 drives.Like the WD Blue: practically a 2230 or 2242 drive with a length of blank PCB so it fits 80mm slots.
dwillmore - Monday, November 15, 2021 - link
Why pay the power penalty for PCI-E v4 when only using v3 worth of speed?meacupla - Monday, November 15, 2021 - link
I'd guess it's for marketing purposes.System builders hardly ever list the speed of the drives that they are using, but having a PCIe 4.0 SSD can be marketed as a feature.
The reason why system builders hardly ever list the speed, or any of the specs for that matter, of the SSD they use, is because they use whatever they can source. In fact, system builders will straight up use slower drives, if their preferred performance drives cannot be sourced. Yes, this absolutely results in magically slower PCs in batch D, despite batches A~C being as fast as review samples.
And since this drive is intended for the OEM market, it's quite obvious that speed is not going to be listed as a key selling point.
dwillmore - Monday, November 15, 2021 - link
No arguement here. I guess it gives them the flexability to only wire up 2x PCI-E v4 lanes and use the other ones for something else. While simultaniously being able to use the same card in older v3 devices without sacrificing performance.blanarahul - Tuesday, November 16, 2021 - link
I think that is the main reason. This drive will be fitted in PCIe 3.0 x4 slots as well and will get 99% of the performance in it.