HP Announces S750 SSD: 96L Entry-Level SATA
by Billy Tallis on July 15, 2020 4:35 PM EST
HP-branded SSDs (manufactured by Biwin) have over the past few years become one of the more recognizable consumer SSD brands, thanks in large part to the success of the EX920 and EX950 high-end NVMe SSDs. However, they offer a wider range of products, and the SATA drives are now getting an update: The new HP S750 SATA SSD replaces the S700 and to some extent also the S700 Pro models, bringing a more modern budget SATA design using 96-layer 3D NAND.
HP/Biwin partners with Silicon Motion for most of their SSD controllers including the one for this drive, with an unspecified degree of customization for HP. We believe the HP H6578 controller used in the S750 is based on either the SM2259 or its DRAMless counterpart the SM2259XT. Pricing for the S750 has not been announced, but the 3 year warranty with endurance ratings of around 0.6 DWPD indicates this is a low-end SATA drive that will compete against DRAMless and QLC-based SSDs.
HP wasn't specific about what kind of 96-layer 3D NAND is used in the S750, but the existence of a 256GB model with decent performance specs makes it unlikely that they're using QLC NAND. The performance sweet spot for the S750 line is the 512GB model, as the 1TB model comes with lower random read and write performance ratings. This suggests that the 1TB model may be using a different, larger NAND die than the smaller two.
| HP S750 SSD Specifications | ||||
| Capacity | 256 GB | 512 GB | 1 TB | |
| Interface, Form Factor | 2.5" SATA 6Gbps | |||
| Controller | HP H6578 (Silicon Motion) | |||
| NAND | Unspecified 96-layer 3D NAND | |||
| DRAM | Unspecified | |||
| Sequential Read | 560 MB/s | |||
| Sequential Write | 520 MB/s | |||
| 4KB Random Read IOPS | 55k | 90k | 74k | |
| 4KB Random Write IOPS | 79k | 89k | 80k | |
| Idle Power | 0.41 W | 0.42 W | 0.42 W | |
| Active Power | 1.83 W | 2.17 W | 2.29 W | |
| Write Endurance | 160 TB 0.6 DWPD |
320 TB 0.6 DWPD |
650 TB 0.6 DWPD |
|
| Warranty | 3 years | |||
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
17 Comments
View All Comments
azfacea - Wednesday, July 15, 2020 - link
96 layer filtering down to the crap end of the market. I am old enof to remember back when "experts" would attack the suggestion that anything near 64 layer might ever be made, because it was supposed to take 5 years inside the oven per wafer.Deicidium369 - Wednesday, July 15, 2020 - link
And at one time the experts thought your face would peel off at 60mph speeds, and that 640K ... and only 5 computers in the entire world. Thing about experts - they get the microphone, but are rarely correct.shabby - Wednesday, July 15, 2020 - link
One expert also thought this covid thing would disappear by easter hahFunBunny2 - Wednesday, July 15, 2020 - link
actually, my favorite is that IBM planned for 2,500 PCs per year, max. the 5 computer thingee relates specifically to the 'super computer' of its time, the early 1950s. Gates was right about the 640K thingee in the time of the 8088/DOS; wrong by the time Windoze came along, of course.PeachNCream - Thursday, July 16, 2020 - link
Once again, that quote from Gates is misunderstood because no one has enough of a clue to spend a few seconds doing research before making themselves look silly for using it vacantly. If you want to make a point about experts and their lack of knowledge in terms of sales projections made decades ago it may be helpful to get the basics right first.deil - Thursday, July 16, 2020 - link
There is always that "one" expert. They are right using current known tech mostly.by 400nm standard a 64 layer ssd would be ~10 cm high chip.
Gates was also right IF price of computer would not go 100x lower within 20 years. You would buy whole towns for performance you get from your phone back in ~1970. (its probably similar speed to what whole nasa had)
you ask why they did not predict this pace of growth? Because its INCREDIBLE and we are just used to it.
jimbo2779 - Thursday, July 16, 2020 - link
I'm sure when I was at nasa a few years back one of their guys stated that the whole of the nasa control room was technically inferior to a single 386 computer. Think how much faster a low end phone today is compared to a 386. Its mind boggling just how much technology has come in that time.PeachNCream - Thursday, July 16, 2020 - link
Interesting. In 1999, most of the compute assets as Goddard were on Sun UltraSPARC systems in the ~200MHz range. They were not slacking on using modern computer equipment back then which were individually much quicker than a 80386. On the other hand, all six of the flight computers aboard the space shuttle were combined much slower than a modern desktop when the shuttle was finally retired. However ground based compute has been on a 3 year refresh cycle for decades except in rare cases where certain systems have to be backwards compatible with ancient deployed junk still loitering in space where reaching it is economically impractical.name99 - Thursday, July 16, 2020 - link
Which experts? Rando's on the internet?I'd like to think that the people within, Samsung or Micron who were engineering these multi-layer systems many years ago were both genuine experts and strongly believed that these systems could be made.
Why does this matter? Because we live in a time where genuine expertise is being mocked and ignored every day, and plenty of the examples for why it should supposedly be mocked and ignored have this vague unsubstantiated feel, a claim that "experts" (never named, never identified, details never given) made some ridiculous claim, therefore all experts are clearly no better than you or me.
PeachNCream - Friday, July 17, 2020 - link
I feel like we have been taking significant steps backward recently. Maybe that's just a consequence of our fight or flight instincts being constantly triggered given global circumstances.