Report: OCZ’s 1TB solid-state drive prepped for mid-August

Remember that 3.5" monster solid-state drive we wrote about in June? Dubbed the Colossus, OCZ’s contraption features an eye-popping 1TB storage capacity and an internal RAID-0 configuration that supposedly enables lightning transfer speeds. Oh, and it’s several times the price of existing consumer SSDs. What’s not to like?

Gizmag now writes that the Colossus may be about to debut. The site says the 1TB behemoth is "likely" to arrive this month, and it should carry a price tag of around $2,500. OCZ is also cooking up a cheaper 500GB version, as we heard ourselves, but Gizmag doesn’t quote a release schedule or pricing for that model.

Back in June, OCZ told us the Colossus could hit top sustained speeds of 250 or 265MB/s (depending on who we listened to) for both reads and writes. The 1TB of flash memory is connected to a couple of Indilinx controllers, which both talk to a JMicron RAID controller. The drive has a 3.5" form factor and weighs a hefty (by SSD standards) 400 g, or 14 oz.

Comments closed
    • conjurer
    • 10 years ago

    the question is, at which market segment are these drives aimed?
    I mean, home users will stick with 80/128/256 gigs, that more then enaugh. Databases arent that large, and someone dealing with them will choose intel ssd’s. Maybe its for file servers to save space in the rack or 1080p video editing, when you have 800+ Gigs of raw videos…

      • derFunkenstein
      • 10 years ago

      It’s OCZ. They’re aimed at people with more dollars than sense who think these drives can magically make their pr0n play faster.

    • sotti
    • 10 years ago

    I’d take money that onboard raid-0 (remember raid-0 doesn’t really have much overhead compared to other configurations)

    I’ll take 4x intel 160gb G2 drive.

    Gaurenteed the single SATA connection on this thing is a huge bottle neck since single drives near 250MB/s anyway.

      • moose17145
      • 10 years ago

      I find it funny that you and others are making such a big deal of this. If it’s such a problem for you, maybe you should switch back to mechanical drives where saturating the SATA connection isn’t a problem. I remember when being able to saturate your drive connection was a good thing because it meant you had one heck of a rockin’ IO setup.

      On a side note, though I am unwilling to piss away money into something like this, it is nice to see them making an actual 3.5″ form factor SSD. I hope this is the first of many. I however will not be jumping into the SSD bandwagon until they are comparable to mechanical drives in price per GB. Doesn’t have to be exact… but if i could get a 1TB SSD for 150 bucks, I would jump on that then (since a mechanical 1TB drive is roughly 100 dollars atm). But I am content to wait for a few more years for that kind of price parity to happen.

    • [SDG]Mantis
    • 10 years ago

    Just 10 years ago, HDD’s were $20+/GB. You’re looking at 6-7 years ago for these prices on conventional HDDs. So, in that light, the prices aren’t quite so insane. But at $0.08/GB, I’ll stick with mechanical drives for a while yet.

    • KyleSTL
    • 10 years ago

    So it seems like the $2-3/GB is pretty much across the board, with the exception of the super-high-end stuff like SLC drives.

    • Vasilyfav
    • 10 years ago

    J-micron raid controller sounds iffy. Not sure if I want to deal with anything that company makes after their terrible debut on the controller market (0.1 mb/s random writes anyone?)

      • AlvinTheNerd
      • 10 years ago

      JMicron is a manufacturer of ‘best performance per price’ chips.

      The company makes a huge number of the controllers for USB flash drives. They make the faster controller available for a USB flash drive. So when companies started to get SSD’s together, they logically started with the best controllers for USB drives. However, that controller was designed for USB drives, not SSD’s and hence you have the problems. JMicron isn’t going to get into the SSD race because the USB drive market is much larger. Building huge numbers of chips that work 40% as well at 1% of the cost and 10% of the heat is JMicron’s business.

      However, their raid chips are designed to be a full hard drive raid chip. They aren’t the best in the world. A better raid system has DDR3 cache and a raid chip that produces 20W by itself which is overkill for a built in raid drive.

        • mesyn191
        • 10 years ago

        Its great that they build fast USB flash controllers and all, but RAID is a totally different animal. Anecdotally every time I’ve used their RAID chips I’ve been disappointed with the performance and the stability. This goes for SiliconImage, Promise, Marvell, and HighPoint too. Hell, even NV/ATi/Intel on board RAID sucks performance wise, at least they’re usually stable though.

        Now, maybe there are other factors at play here when you RAID SSD’s, maybe a high end RAID subsystem isn’t required for them. I remain pessimistic though.

    • 5150
    • 10 years ago

    This is retarded. Maybe is SATA 3 was out it would make sense, but talk about a bottleneck!

      • UberGerbil
      • 10 years ago

      How do you figure? Current SATA (2G or 2 or II or whatever — 3Gbits/s) can handle 300 MB/s.sustained.

        • 5150
        • 10 years ago

        It’s basically a bunch of Vertex’s RAID’d together, a Vertex can hit 240 read / 170 write. X 4 of those should be getting close to 1GB reads as has been proven by a decent PCI-X RAID card.

          • UberGerbil
          • 10 years ago

          But OCZ itself is saying they’re not hitting 300 MB/s with it, as you would expect if the SATA link was going to be the bottleneck. That may be because they’re not being as aggressive as they could be when it comes to putting the chips in parallel, but that’s also dictated by their controller design (you don’t want a simple “RAID in a box” design; ideally you want all the chips in a common pool so you can wear-level across them and make optimal use of them when writing, etc)..

            • stdRaichu
            • 10 years ago

            If they’re not hitting above the rates of a single vertex with what they say is two vertexes in RAID0, then the bottleneck is obviously somewhere other than the flash chips and must lie in the RAID controller instead. As others have pointed out, 1TB of flash chips should get you theoretical maximums nearer 1GB/s, that it doesn’t saturate a 300MB/s interface is a bit iffy IMHO.

            • khands
            • 10 years ago

            You all seem to think that 300MB/s is not a theoretical maximum, but one in stone. If these “magically improve to 550 MB/s” once Sata 3 versions appear, well, we’ll /[

    • khands
    • 10 years ago

    The cheapest 256 I could find was $600, so not really.

    • Farting Bob
    • 10 years ago

    Wouldnt it be cheaper to buy 2x 500GB (or 4x 250GB) SSD’s and RAID-0 them yourself?

      • mesyn191
      • 10 years ago

      Cheaper only if you use on board RAID, which is usually pretty crappy performance wise.

      A “real” RAID card that has its own dedicated CPU and large amounts of cache (very important for writes, especially when using SSD’s) that is “cheap” costs around $250, the cost rapidly goes up from there. If you look around on the used hardware forums here and other places you can occasionally find cards like the Areca1210 PCIe x8 RAID card going for $150 or so. The Dell PERC 5/6i is far more common, costs around $100 or so but is much slower than the Areca card, still faster than on board RAID though.

      You also need an open slot for one of those cards too, which depending on your system config. may not be possible without buying a new motherboard…

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This