back to article Seagate ships slim, fast Pulsar XT SSD

Seagate is shipping its Pulsar XT.2 SSD with an SPC-1C benchmark rating, and has a second slower but higher capacity SSD coming soon. The 2.5-inch Pulsar XT.2 is available in up to 400GB capacities, has a 6Gbit/s SAS interface, and is built from fast single-level–cell flash. Seagate submitted the drive to the SPC benchmark …


This topic is closed for new posts.

Obvious press release is obvious

$0.32/IOP... WOW! Would you look at that? Shhhh... don't mention the $16.00/GB.

Over there... look at the birdy!

The prices might be heading in the right direction... but this still might as well be made of unobtainium for what I'd like to see it used for. Still, would love to see a messaging infrastructure, even if it's just in a lab that we have to tear down after a week... just to see what we could do with SSD.

Paris Hilton


how do they reach $2.50/IOPS for the Seagate Barracuda? A quick search says there's a 500GB 7200rpm SATA3 Barracuda @ $49 from Amazon, even cheaper from Ebay ~= $0.32/IOPS @ 180 IOPS coincidentally :-)

Even to reach $150 the Barracuda is SATA6 7200rpm 2TB, 64MB cache so someone's been shopping at Harrods :-D


yes price

Whaddaya mean no info on price?

iops @ $0.32, 20k x 0.32 = 6400

GB @ $16, 400 x 16 = 6400

The intel 311 kills them at $6 GB

Anonymous Coward


SAS drives do cost more than SATA, which I suppose is the reason for the much-more-expensive-than-ebay price for the Barracuda. And SLC per GB prices don't seem to be moving down much, so the price is always going to be very high compared to MLC offerings. And then there is the enterprise markup compared to consumer offerings, which can probably be seen in a comparison with the also-SLC Intel 311 drive.


Agreed: SAS vs SATA, SLC vs MLC

SAS is more expensive than SATA... and a quick Google for a SAS Barracuda price check gave a spread of between $175 and $295 (non-refurb) vs. $89 (list of $136) for the equivalent sized SATA.

Current MLC is 2-layer, so just from a silicon real estate standpoint we're talking double the cost for SLC for equivalent process size and storage.

So if we say 2x for SAS vs. SATA, 2x for SDD vs. HDD, and 2x for SLC vs. MLC... no disagreement that these drives should be in the 8x range for "Enterprise" grade SSD vs. "Consumer" grade HDD (yeah, I know those are debatable terms so sorry) storage... that I can understand.

16x... that I don't get. Maybe my maths are off(?)

This topic is closed for new posts.


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018