AMD launches new line of Radeon R3 SSDs

[WALLONN7]

AMD recently launched its new line of Radeon R3 SSDs. The drives have 120GB , 240GB , 480GB and 960GB capacity for storage.

Based on the 2.5 "format, the new SSDs AMD have SATA 6.0Gbps interface and thickness of 7mm.

They also use flash memory chips TLC (triple-level cell) and controller Silicon Motion SM2256KX.

The read and write speeds of the new SSDs Radeon R3 can reach up to 520Mb / s and 360MB / s for the model with 120GB, 520Mb / s

and 470MB / s for the model with 240GB, 520Mb / s and 470MB / s for the model with 480GB and 510MB / s and 450MB / s for the 960GB model.

 

Based on the 2.5 "format, the new SSDs AMD have SATA 6.0Gbps interface and thickness of 7mm. They also use flash memory chips TLC (triple-level cell) and controller Silicon Motion SM2256KX

The new SSDs Radeon R3 are already available in the United States and Canada. In the US, models with 120GB, 240GB and 480GB

can already be found in the shop Amazon.com for US $ 40.99, US $ 69.99 and US $ 136.99 respectively.

Specifications of the new Radeon R3 SSDs:

 

Source ( Brazilian language )

 

[Batu69]

 

AMD has silently launched its Radeon R3 budget SSDs that are powered by Toshiba TLC NAND and a Silicon Motion controller. The drives are available in capacities of 120GB, 240GB, 480GB and 960GB.

 

The 2.5″, SATA-3 drives have a specified sequential maximum read speed of 510-520MB/s and a maximum sequential write speed of up 470MB/s for the 240GB and 480GB models and 360MB/s for the 120GB.

 

The 120GB drive has a MSRP of $40.99, the 240GB sells for $69.99 and the 480GB SSD should set you back $136.99. AMD has not disclosed any pricing on the 960GB model but we expect it to be around $249.99.

 

The AMD Radeon R3 SSDs come with a 3 year warranty and AMD clearly states the drives are manufactured and warranted by the Chinese company Galt Inc. This company is new to use by appears to be selling the same AMD drives also branded as Ruby in Russia.

 

Article source

[WALLONN7]

@Batu69... Posted earlier...

 

 

[oliverjia]

TLC junk. Stay away.

[DKT27]

9 minutes ago, oliverjia said:

TLC junk. Stay away.

 

Can you explain it further. How are MLC or SLC compared to TLC.

 

I was actually was considering to keep an eye on it.

[oliverjia]

11 minutes ago, DKT27 said:

 

Can you explain it further. How are MLC or SLC compared to TLC.

 

I was actually was considering to keep an eye on it.

 

SLC (Single Level Cell)

The Single Level Cell flash is so called for it's single bit that can either be on or off when charged. This type of flash has the advantage of being the most accurate when reading and writing data, and also has the benefit of lasting the longest data read and write cycles. Program read/write life cycle is expected to be between 90,000 and 100,000. This type of flash has done exceptionally well in the enterprise market because of it's life span, accuracy and overall performance. You won't see too many home computers with this type of NAND due to its high cost and low storage capacities.

Pros:

• Has the longest lifespan and charge cycles over any other type of flash.
• More reliable smaller room for read/write error.
• Can operate in a broader temperature range.

Cons:

• The most expensive type of NAND flash on the market.
• Often only available in smaller capacities.

Recommended for:

• Industrial use and workloads that require heavy read/write cycles such as servers.

---

MLC (Multi Level Cell)

MLC flash as it's name suggests stores multi bits of data on one cell. The big advantage of this is the lower cost of manufacturing versus manufacturing SLC flash. The lower cost in flash production is generally passed onto you as the consumer, and for that reason is very popular among many brands. MLC flash is preferred for consumer SSDs for it's lower costs but the data read/write life is less in comparison to SLC at around 10,000 per cell.

Pros:

• Lower production costs are passed onto you the consumer.
• Is more reliable than TLC flash.

Cons:

• Not as durable and reliable as SLC or enterprise SSDs.

Recommended for:

• Everyday consumer use, gamers, and enthusiasts.

---

TLC (Triple Level Cell)

Storing 3 bits of data per cell, TLC flash is the cheapest form of flash to manufacture. The biggest disadvantage to this type of flash is that it is only suitable for consumer usage, and would not be able to meet the standards for industrial use. Read/write life cycles are considerably shorter at 3,000 to 5,000 cycles per cell.

Pros:

• Cheapest to manufacture which in turn leads to cheaper to market SSDs.

Cons:

• Cells will survive considerably less read/write cycles compared to MLC NAND. This means that TLC flash is good for consumer use only.

Recommended for:

• Everyday consumer use, web/email machines, netbooks, and tablets.

 

[DKT27]

33 minutes ago, oliverjia said:

 

 

I see. Does explain most of the things. I wish MLC or SLC were cheaper. I'm not jumping onto the SSD for not only them being expensive, but also wanting to wait as much as possible as it will keep getting cheaper. The basic idea is to make 500GB or atleast 250GB coming under my personal budget.

 

Eitherway, what do you think about this and this. I first thought it mentioned TLC, but rechecking it shows that it does not do so.

[oliverjia]

54 minutes ago, DKT27 said:

Eitherway, what do you think about this and this. I first thought it mentioned TLC, but rechecking it shows that it does not do so.

 

Well, I think the conclusion is reasonable. MLC stores 2 bit in a cell, so there are 2² = 4 on-off status per cell; SLC has 2¹ = 2 on-off status per cell. So the difference is only 2 status per cell between SLC and MLC, not much of a difference, and the SSD controller can manage these status easily.

 

However, for TLC, there are 2³ = 8 status, that is quite some difference from SLC (8-2=6) and MLC (8-4=4). More status per cell means higher requirement for SSD controller, and higher rate of write/read error. 

 

I only purchased MLC SSDs in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. I only use SSDs as OS drive, so 120GB actually works out pretty well for me. I also have two 240GB SSDs on which I dual boot Win10 and Ubuntu. 

[Batu69]

Thread merged.

[DKT27]

1 hour ago, oliverjia said:

 

Well, I think the conclusion is reasonable. MLC stores 2 bit in a cell, so there are 2² = 4 on-off status per cell; SLC has 2¹ = 2 on-off status per cell. So the difference is only 2 status per cell between SLC and MLC, not much of a difference, and the SSD controller can manage these status easily.

 

However, for TLC, there are 2³ = 8 status, that is quite some difference from SLC (8-2=6) and MLC (8-4=4). More status per cell means higher requirement for SSD controller, and higher rate of write/read error. 

 

I only purchased MLC SSDs in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. I only use SSDs as OS drive, so 120GB actually works out pretty well for me. I also have two 240GB SSDs on which I dual boot Win10 and Ubuntu. 

 

I see.

 

I wish I could do with just SSD for the OS, need it for gaming too.

[oliverjia]

35 minutes ago, DKT27 said:

 

I see.

 

I wish I could do with just SSD for the OS, need it for gaming too.

 

 for gaming, yes you need SSDs of larger size. Considering the cost, I agree with you, at least 240GB, but if you have enough budget a 480GB or larger will be ideal.