>http://www.anandtech.com/show/10481/the-samsung-850-evo-4tb-ssd-review
>$1499 MSRP
I'm curious on the type of consumer that would buy a 4TB SSD at that price. I mean, I would love to replace the noisy six 4TB HDDs on the NAS, but the cost is just too great on those things. Mushkin is promising a hybrid solution for $500, so we'll just have to wait for that. Also, can we expect the expensive 3D xPoint this year? We're halfway into 2016 with no indication of a release date.
Xpoint is just a meme from Intel they got no game., Samsung already has 16tb SSDs all you need to do now is wait for the price to drop.
xPoint is exciting, but it will probably not deliver.
>>55522075
>Samsung already has 16tb SSDs
Yeah, but they're enterprise. We won't be seeing them anytime soon at affordable prices. It will be a nice future, I have so many HDDs on the desktop that it's not even funny.
>>55522277
>those digits
RIP in pieces, thread.
>>55522277
Godly trips WITNESSED!
>>55522037
I want Mushkin to push down prices like OCZ did, but it's not a >real 4TB SSD. It's more of a RAIDlike solution.
>>55522277
Nice
Shameless self bump.
>>55522037
>can we expect the expensive 3D xPoint this year? We're halfway into 2016 with no indication of a release date.
Probably not. Rumour says the Xeon to go with the DIMM version of 3D xPoint will be announced, not released, mid 2017. So that's a negative on their weird SSD-RAM thing until then. I don't expect the SATA version to come out before the DIMM version either.
Also, gentle reminder that you'll be needing a specially designed Xeon processor for 3D xPoint as RAM. You won't be able to put it in your old DDR4 build because it's not compatible.
in 5 years they'll be 100 bucks, I love exponential growth
>>55525676
from wikipedia
>IM Flash announced that the first generation of solid state drives will achieve 95000 IOPS throughput with 9 microsecond latency
>9 microsecond
Why would anyone want to use this as RAM when the actual RAM has 3 orders of magnitude lower latency?
>>55525833
When you need terabytes of ram
>>55525964
>9 us latency RAM
Must suck having a brain damaged computer. Who gives a fuck if there's terabytes of RAM.
>>55525964
Why not use it as swap partition then?
>>55525833
For databases that need raw throughput, or so goes the Intel marketing. The tech illiterates around here just saw "Intel" and "RAM slot SSD that's faster than DDR3*" and swallowed that shit whole, no questions asked.
>>55526202
Because nothing else on a computer offers as much throughput as the RAM slot. PCIe 4.0 might but that's not due to be finished as a specification until next year and we won't be seeing it in anything until probably the year after that.
