"the lifetime footprint for a 1 terabyte SSD is 369.2 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent versus 199 kg for an HDD. So HDDs are much cleaner" and "they say their analysis does not account for the impact of SSDs on overall performance".
Does that take into account the effect it has on other components? SSD's load faster than spinning rust drives, which means more time your PC is consuming electricity.
I think we all can agree that overpopulation is the key problem that causes humans to adversely impact Earth and soil their proverbial cage. Its a pity that the lower band of socioeconomic people tend to have the most children and thus pass on their poor quality of life, bad decision-making skills, and reduced drive resulting in people that ridicule those that have an interest in being responsible caretakers for our planet.
With all that said, we are well past the point where we should have been analyzing and reconsidering the full impact of all the things we do from football and auto sports to excessively wasteful compute capabilities. Carbon footprint analytics and efforts to raise awareness about such things are encouraging glimmers of hope that we can do better despite a few lost cause throwbacks that have absorbed mis- and disinformation from the social media and family echo chambers they unfortunately live in.
The table is misleading. 1.75M IOPS is only for high queue depth random reads. For a moment I thought someone had figured how to dethrone Optane with NAND.
Yeah, my guess is a LOT of those those specs are misleading, or there is a missing asterisk with 3 pages of non-standard testing parameters. My guess is the old SandForce guys are infecting Phison with their benchmarking shenanigans.
I figured it out, look at the linked datasheets, those specs are for a 24W(!) product, and they don't even match the article (latency/UBER). The performance of the of the M version (not H) is at or below the specs of Kioxia and Micron for the same power draw.
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
14 Comments
Back to Article
ballsystemlord - Tuesday, August 2, 2022 - link
@Ganesh Your "source" link is broken and it goes to AT "https://www.anandtech.com/show/17517/www.phison.co...Threska - Tuesday, August 2, 2022 - link
Hopefully the carbon footprint of these new SSDs are good.https://www.discovermagazine.com/technology/the-di...
AusMatt - Wednesday, August 3, 2022 - link
"the lifetime footprint for a 1 terabyte SSD is 369.2 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent versus 199 kg for an HDD. So HDDs are much cleaner" and "they say their analysis does not account for the impact of SSDs on overall performance".StevoLincolnite - Sunday, August 14, 2022 - link
Does that take into account the effect it has on other components? SSD's load faster than spinning rust drives, which means more time your PC is consuming electricity.TheinsanegamerN - Wednesday, August 10, 2022 - link
"muh CO2"!!11!!!!I'm sure gretta will send you a thank you card.
PeachNCream - Thursday, September 1, 2022 - link
I think we all can agree that overpopulation is the key problem that causes humans to adversely impact Earth and soil their proverbial cage. Its a pity that the lower band of socioeconomic people tend to have the most children and thus pass on their poor quality of life, bad decision-making skills, and reduced drive resulting in people that ridicule those that have an interest in being responsible caretakers for our planet.With all that said, we are well past the point where we should have been analyzing and reconsidering the full impact of all the things we do from football and auto sports to excessively wasteful compute capabilities. Carbon footprint analytics and efforts to raise awareness about such things are encouraging glimmers of hope that we can do better despite a few lost cause throwbacks that have absorbed mis- and disinformation from the social media and family echo chambers they unfortunately live in.
Wrs - Tuesday, August 2, 2022 - link
The table is misleading. 1.75M IOPS is only for high queue depth random reads. For a moment I thought someone had figured how to dethrone Optane with NAND.SSD_Guy - Wednesday, August 3, 2022 - link
Yeah, my guess is a LOT of those those specs are misleading, or there is a missing asterisk with 3 pages of non-standard testing parameters. My guess is the old SandForce guys are infecting Phison with their benchmarking shenanigans.SSD_Guy - Wednesday, August 3, 2022 - link
I figured it out, look at the linked datasheets, those specs are for a 24W(!) product, and they don't even match the article (latency/UBER). The performance of the of the M version (not H) is at or below the specs of Kioxia and Micron for the same power draw.ganeshts - Wednesday, August 3, 2022 - link
This is the X1 spec - https://www.phison.com/phocadownload/X1-SSD/128581... . Where do you see latency / UBER not matching?I did add the clarification on the IOPS ratings.
LuxZg - Thursday, August 4, 2022 - link
Isn't that exactly the prevalent workload for enterprise drives? These aren't marketed at typical Facebook surferdrajitshnew - Thursday, August 4, 2022 - link
How is U3 different from U2?TheinsanegamerN - Wednesday, August 10, 2022 - link
It's 3.Tomatotech - Thursday, August 11, 2022 - link
50% better, obvs.