Last month, Samsung announced
that their 960 Pro,
(PCI-E x4 gen3) M.2 NVMe SSD would available in October
at 512GB, 1TB and 2TB capacities.
This is a high-end PC and workstation product.
There is a similar but separate product line (SM961?) for OEM customers.
The 960 Pro had already been mentioned earlier this year.
This week, all the hardware sights published product reviews,
and others as well.
All the previous PCI-E x4 gen3 NVMe SSDs were rated between 2,000-2,500MB/s in large block read.
The 960 Pro is rated for 3,500MB/s read.
This is pretty much the maximum possible bandwidth for PCI-E x4 gen3.
Each PCI-E gen3 lane is 8Gbit/s, but the realizable bandwidth is less.
In earlier generation products,
an upper bound of 800MB/s realizable per 8Gbit/s nominal signaling rate
Presumably there was a reason why every PCI-E x4 was
in the 2000-2500MB/s bandwidth.
It could be that these were 8-channel controllers and the NAND interface was 333-400MB/s.
Even though 8 x 400MB/s = 3,200MB/s, it is expected that excess bandwidth is necessary
on the downstream side.
The could be other reasons as well, perhaps the DRAM for caching NAND meta-data.
Intel had an 18-channel controller, which produced 2,400MB/s in the P750 line, and 2,800MB/s in the P3x00 line.
It is very annoying that the more vertical SSD OEMs decline to disclose meaning details
of the controller in their SSD.
The 960 PRO uses the new Polaris controller, for which few details beyond the Read/Write IOPS and bandwidth
specifications are published.
the 960 PRO is shown to have the Polaris controller and DRAM in a single package.
There are 4 NAND packages, each with 16 stacked 512Gbit die for the 2TB product.
I am guessing that the Polaris controller has 8-channels,
at 8-bit per channel with each package connecting to 2 channels?
But there are other possibilities, such as 4 x 16-bit channels.
The reason is that the previous generation NAND were 333 or 400MB/s.
The most recent NAND from Micron is listed at 533MB/s.
In order to support 3,500MB/s on the upstream interface,
there needs to be more than that amount on the downstream side combined.
While Samsung is the leader in V-NAND, it seems more likely that the 960 has 8 channels 8-bit
(or 4 channels, 16-bit) at 533MT/s
and not 4 channels, 8-bit 1066MT/s.
Between the two likely scenarios, 8-channel 8-bit should support higher IOPS than 4 channel 16bit?
Both the 2TB and 1TB models have read specs of 440,000 IOPS while the 512GB model is 330,000 IOPS.
It could be that the 1TB is 4 packages, 16 chips stacked with a 256Gb chips, and the 512GB model has 8 chips stacked. It is also possible that the 1TB has packages stacked 8 high with the same 512Gb, just that there is no reduction in IOPS, while the 512GB has 4 chip stacks?
I would think that 2 x 960 PROs in a single socket Xeon E3 quad-core would be a great match.
My current test system is a single socket Xeon E5 10-core with four Intel 750 SSDs.
I will probably not outfit another test system until the Xeon E5 v5 comes out next year,
in which I may opt for the 960 PRO.
Oh yeah, the 960 PRO is not a enterprise product, so should probably not be used in critical production environments, but should be ok for test.
It is possible to buy a M.2 to PCI-E adapter, but I would like an adapter that can accommodate 2 M.2 devices in one PCI-E x8 slot, without the use of a PCI-E switch if possible.
HP has an adapter for 4 M.2 in a x16 that only works in HP systems
last year I bought a Dell XPS9550 with the then new Skylake processor.
It came with a 512GB Samsung PM951, which was an older model rated for 1GB/s sequential, while the slightly more expensive SM951 was rated for 2GB/s.
This drive died after 3 months. Dell sent a replacement, but I elected to go out and buy the 950 PRO myself, rated the same 2GB/s as the SM951, but perhaps same or not?
The failure of one device is not sufficient to make an assessment, but I have dozens of OCZ Vertex and Vectors, and several Intel SSDs of various flavors, all running for several years now without failure.