Corsair Accidentally Reveals MP700 PCIe 5.0 SSD, Running at 10 GB/s

[TheLostSwede]

Seems like Gen 5 NVMe drives need a new formfactor.

They sort of got one, with 25 mm wide M.2 drives, rather than 22, but it won't make a big difference in terms of cooling.
So instead of 2280, we should start seeing 2580 drives.

 

[shilka]

There is very little outside of editing moving large amount of files around on drives and a few other use cases that can take advantage of NVME speeds so this drive is rather pointless outside of those tasks and for people obsessed with numbers being higher

Even PCI-E gen 3 NVME is more than good enough for most people and since there is very little software that can take advantage of NVME speeds there is no major difference between this drive and a run of the mill gen 3 or gen 4 drive

There should be more foucs towards driving the price of TLC NAND flash down or make QLC flash more durable so we can get drives bigger than 4 TB without costing and arm and a leg
An 8 TB NVME using TLC or better QLC NAND flash would be more interesting than this rather pointless drive

Everyone and their dog keeps whining about SATA and HDD´s being outdated and needs to be replaced but an SSD bigger than 4 TB does not exist outside of a few that cost way too much
The 50 and 100 TB SSD´s from Nimbus Data cost $10.000 and $40.000 USD and almost nobody has the money for that

Keeps whining about something they dont like but nothing that can replace it because those very same people have no interest in anything that can replace it
Where i live a 20 TB HDD is about the same price as a good 4 TB NVME drive (note that i said good and not cheapest!)

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
You mean direct storage can't use these speeds ? damn waste

By the way nothing is revealed by accident not even plumbers crack

 

[shilka]

There is not available data or evidence that shows DirectStorage will make any difference
When there is data available that shows any difference i am willing to change my mind

Its from june 2022 so i know its not the newest but here is a quote

It’s too early to say definitively how good DirectStorage is since no currently available games use the technology. However, the developers for the upcoming game Forspoken recently demoed how DirectStorage improves loading times. On NVME SSDs, DirectStorage reduced loading times by up to half a second, while on SATA SSDs, the loading times were reduced by just under a full second. Although the loading times were certainly low, it’s very easy to get underwhelmed with how little improvement DirectStorage provided.

What is Microsoft DirectStorage? Next-gen game loading, explained

DirectStorage is making its way to PC so that game devs can take advantage of fast NVME SSDs. But what exactly does it do, and should you care?

www.digitaltrends.com

Wow half a second yes because thats a major difference
Again the software that can take advantage of DirectStorage does not yet exist so until then pointless drive from Corsair

 

[Minus Infinity]

Please stop supporting the marketing teams and posting sequential BS numbers that are meaningless. Make them quote random I/O's an transfer rates.

 

[Space Lynx]

NAND, by its nature, will never approach those numbers.

it makes you wonder why Optane was abandoned then, since 4k is all that really matters. strange imo

 

[TumbleGeorge]

it makes you wonder why Optane was abandoned then, since 4k is all that really matters. strange imo

$/GB too much.

 

[Chaitanya]

I had posted the link to their video 2-3 days back itself on thread of upcoming hardware launches. It seems like video has been since removed from their channel.

 

[Solaris17]

it makes you wonder why Optane was abandoned then, since 4k is all that really matters. strange imo

because it was crazy expensive to make

 

[Space Lynx]

because it was crazy expensive to make

then they should have raised the price on buying it, if i remember right a 16gb stick of optane was super cheap, like 30 bucks brand new back in the day. if it really improved the speed of everything, I would think more people would be willing to pay for it, but perhaps not. I think part of its failure was most consumers looked at a 16gb stick of storage and said oh, that can't do anything cause I need more storage than that. I don't know

 

[Solaris17]

then they should have raised the price on buying it

lol optane was crazy $$$

 

[Space Lynx]

lol optane was crazy $$$

maybe I saw its end of day clearance sale prices then, I know it was fairly easy to get a 16gb stick of Optane for like $20 or $30.

I think you are talking about full Optane storage drives though, can't say I ever seen any of those for sale.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

In fact, hardly anyone but an insider knows what the production costs per gigabyte of Optane are, but the selling prices in retail stores were affordable to only a few high-income earners. This, of course, compared to SSDs.

 

[Deleted member 120557]

maybe I saw its end of day clearance sale prices then, I know it was fairly easy to get a 16gb stick of Optane for like $20 or $30.

I think you are talking about full Optane storage drives though, can't say I ever seen any of those for sale.

16GB for $30 is RAM pricing. There is basically no wait time with NAND drives, which are $80 for 1TB. It’s not like SSDs make you wait for app loads like hard drives can grind to a halt.

Wasn’t worth the price.

 

[sephiroth117]

For general productivity and games I really don't see the point in pushing my M.2 thermals, adding a noisy fans for extra superfluous read/write performance.

I think, as always, the first SSD will not be really interesting, with new controllers and with time we will see cooler SSD gen5 that are quicker too..
Early adopting a gen5 SSD i really don't get it unless you really have a professional need for something like that

 

[TumbleGeorge]

For general productivity and games I really don't see the point in pushing my M.2 thermals, adding a noisy fans for extra superfluous read/write performance.

I think, as always, the first SSD will not be really interesting, with new controllers and with time we will see cooler SSD gen5 that are quicker too..
Early adopting a gen5 SSD i really don't get it unless you really have a professional need for something like that

All previous relatively new versions of controllers for consumer SSDs are artificially limited to support up to 8TB of data. Now with the new PCIe 5.0 Phison E26, the limit has been increased to 32TB, so if we want an SSD with a single controller used(as all M.2 models are) with a capacity of more than 8TB, it must be PCIe 5.0.

 

[Solaris17]

All previous relatively new versions of controllers for consumer SSDs are artificially limited to support up to 8TB of data. Now with the new PCIe 5.0 Phison E26, the limit has been increased to 32TB, so if we want an SSD with a single controller used(as all M.2 models are) with a capacity of more than 8TB, it must be PCIe 5.0.

Oh? Is that actually the case in some specification? I always figured I’d was literally the physical size of NAND that could be placed on that form factor.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

Oh? Is that actually the case in some specification? I always figured I’d was literally the physical size of man’s that could be placed on that form factor.

I read this and have not idea how to prove it.

Phison PS5018-E18 Specifications
ControllerPS5018-E18
CapacitiesMax: 8TB

Phison E26 (PS5026-E26) Specifications

Up to 8 Channels with 32 Chips Enable (CE)

– Capacity up to 32TB

 

[GhostRyder]

I mean, I can see this being cool on loads that can hit those speeds (Like massive file transfers and such), but for everyday usage we won't see anything near that speed.

 

[Solaris17]

I mean, I can see this being cool on loads that can hit those speeds (Like massive file transfers and such), but for everyday usage we won't see anything near that speed.

Even then; I think a lot of people miss that your 1kb txt document isnt zooming through traces at the speed of 10gb/s or 7gb/s. These speeds are obtainable only via large single file transfers (like ISOs or ZIP files) think 4+gb per file. Not: 4gb of file(s). Or in some cases bit streaming (chunks).

I used to be a data architect in charge of physical systems and disks used, as well as the cache nand on them, all the way up to back planes, then up to the OS file system, then up to kernel I/O schedule tuning and then finally up to TOR switches and the throughput they could provide to my arrays (around 160 (raided)TB) per node. (around 22 per rack)

I managed backup arrays and VM clustered storage for hypervisor clusters.

The hardest thing ever was breaking new engineers of old habits like this. For each small file, there is I/O overhead. Usually a:

Read
Write
Read Verify
Mark wrote

Next file

(do it again)

Barring other constraints or limitations these ops take time. IF you are transferring 100mb of pictures, but there are 10k pictures, this will take longer than one 2gb zip, because EACH ONE is a file operation.

When dealing with scenarios like that, the throughput of the drive tanks since the controller is needing to stop and go as other files are polled. This is true of ssd or hdd. Data streaming a large file will always be faster.

tl;dr you are not transferring your documents folder to your new nvme drive at 7gb/s. (You could but the total theoretical performance of the disk would need to be vastly faster.)

EDIT:: Not attacking you btw, I was agreeing. You just triggered a super mega common misinterpretation I see all the time on the forums and as someone who had to work on it so closely it drives me absolutely wild.

I think @W1zzard storage reviews actually show this too. Maybe one day I can do storage or server related reviews for TPU. Until then Im gonna cry everytime someone mentions raw drive speed as the go to metric.

 

[TROGDOR!!!]

I mean, I can see this being cool on loads that can hit those speeds (Like massive file transfers and such), but for everyday usage we won't see anything near that speed.

It’s really not the way it works. Even on super fast 7000MB drivers, large transfers have difficulty crossing 1500MB/sec. The SLC cache is exceeded relatively quickly and then it’s just down to the sustained speed of TLC NAND - or worse.

 

[Chrispy_]

I'm fine with PCIe 4.0 NVMe drives.
I don't need more speed or heat...

I'm fine with PCIe 3.0 x2 drives at home
The number of things I need >1800MB/s sequential throughput for is currently zero.

Upgrading my old games library drive in the HTPC from a 1TB SATA SSD to a 4TB Crucial P3 resulted in zero performance gains, as expected.
If you think you need a faster SSD, you don't. Launch your biggest, fattest game with task manager running, then tab out and look at the occasional peaks in the disk graph - I had one at 600MB/s and the rest were in the 100-200MB/s range, because pretty much any big reads these days need decompressing by the CPU.

Sequential NVMe read/write speeds are only useful for copying and scrubbing raw video for home users. There really isn't much else outside of an application server that needs such performance, and DirectStorage's first outing (Forspoken) was a nothingburger.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

Just give me much, much more SSD capacity. Terabytes with two or three numbers will be good for future proof.

 

[DY69SX]

You can tell how fast you're transferring those sequential files by the jet engine noises.

Sound's legit

 

[b1k3rdude]

Now show me those 4K/512B results, you know, the one programs and system files are actually the size of.

LOL, I have replied one or twice to Wizz about these articles. I dont care about sequencial, what I want to see is 4kQD1 reads and rights, in MB/s NOT in iops.