OCZ intros 3.5-inch Colossus SSD at Computex

Not satisfied with a few new machines from OCZ Technology? Have a look at this. Over in Taiwan, the company has slid out an all new SSD solution designed to fit into the 3.5-inch holes that desktop gamers have grown to know and love. The so-called Colossus solid state drive will be made available in around eight weeks in 512GB and 1TB sizes, though there's no telling just yet how pricey they'll be. From what we can gather, there will be a pair of drives in there strung together in a RAID 0 array; in a sense, it's a Z-Drive in a different form factor. Color us emphatically interested -- even though we aren't yet willing to sacrifice our child's education in order to put a down payment on one.

Gallery: OCZ intros 3.5-inch Colossus SSD at Computex

• 
• 
• 

[Idlemind @ Jun 2nd 2009 11:50AM]

arent one of the selling points (besides the obvious no moving parts thing.) that these are supposed to be small?

[BuddyBoy @ Jun 2nd 2009 12:00PM]

But in a desktop who cares? It's a standard desktop size drive.

[Jacob @ Jun 2nd 2009 12:03PM]

This are the equivalent of 2-4 SSDs. So it'll take up less space in reality than the equivalent 2.5 inch drives.

[Taylor @ Jun 2nd 2009 12:04PM]

Frankly, I don't care if they are as big as regular drives. That is more of an afterthought on the benefits. The benefits are speed, lack of noise and heat, and no moving parts.

The smaller sizes may be beneficial to the netbook crowd, but this drive is obviously not meant for the netbook or even laptop crowd. This is a desktop drive pure and simple.

[Idlemind @ Jun 2nd 2009 12:03PM]

I was kinda hopin to use it as a tiny external that I can literally toss in my bag.

[Taylor @ Jun 2nd 2009 12:06PM]

@Idlemind
A tiny external $1200 RAID drive you can "literally" toss in your bag? ... Is that a Gucci bag on the front seat of your Ferrari or are you just dreaming?

[RoboDan @ Jun 2nd 2009 12:34PM]

plz make cheep

and if 3.5" < $$ than 2.5", make me a 5.25" or 8" one plz

[Idlemind @ Jun 2nd 2009 1:11PM]

@taylor

Gucci is so passe'. :P

I'm a mobile DJ and a drive that can take some abuse is priceless. (upto a point)

and No its a Lotus, I'm on a budget..

[kirankonathala @ Jun 2nd 2009 2:01PM]

2 years from now, people will be reading these posts about such high prices and laughing their *** off!!

[GingerFox @ Jun 2nd 2009 11:57AM]

Pretty awesome but im assuming i'd have to sell a kidney to get one:(

[Ghen @ Jun 2nd 2009 9:59PM]

Seriously, I'd rather have the move to 3.5 made to reduce price instead of increase capacity.

All I need is 60-80GB for everything speedy. Data can go elsewhere.

[Breex243 @ Jun 2nd 2009 1:02PM]

THANK GOD someone in the SSD companies realized that desktop computers also needed SSDs. I've always thought about getting a 30 or 60Gigger to use as an OS/media processing drive to complement the TBs I've got for storage, but with larger form factors comes:
1) Smaller capactities with cheaper (less dense) chips = cheaper for guys like me who only need complementary storage
and 2) Large SSDs capacities for more demanding users

The desktop is not dead, everyone. And drive converters don't necessarily work in all towers.

[numberoneoppa @ Jul 14th 2009 4:27PM]

I agree, the physical volume of a 3.5" drive casing is 6 size that of a 2.5" drive casing. Why SSD manufacturers have not taken advantage of this on the large scale is beyond me, especially when most enthusiasts who seek speed are using desktops.

[LongshotX @ Jun 2nd 2009 12:03PM]

Wow

[Neoprimal @ Jun 2nd 2009 12:12PM]

Are SSDs practical right now? I'm tempted to get one but there's such a variety. I read that some are rated to 20GB per day (yikes!)...that's a scary prospect considering there are days when I write 2x or 3x that. I've also read that most aren't that much quicker at everyday computing/storageas your typical sata 2 hard drive because it's really low seek times that are great with SSDs, but they also have low read/write times as well.
When is the immutable slowdown (even on really expensive, quality SSDs)? When they 'fault' do they just die like usb flash drives? I had a Lexar jumpdrive that just went. At least on a hard drive, from my experience 90% of the time I can tell it's going and save something.
Apart from the 'idea' that it is less likely to fail or 'better' because of no moving parts, and of course the fact that it's noiseless - what are the real world benefits of moving to SSD right now?

[Jeremy @ Jun 2nd 2009 12:20PM]

I can tell you when my work swapped out my Lenovo laptop mechanical drive with a Samsung SSD things started to FLY. Boot times were cut dramatically, virus scans became quicker, and so did Excel sheet reference calculations. Of course things like accessing files on mechanical drives over the network aren't any fast but thats a given.

As far a failure thats an issue with anything. Sure technically it might be easier to get files off a dead mechanical drive over an SSD but mechanical has been in use a lot long and is just more mature. Always have a back-up, or two.

[bdav @ Jun 2nd 2009 12:24PM]

If we're taking power out of the equation, I've always thought a well designed RAID array seems like a better idea in terms of price and performance.

[Leo @ Jun 2nd 2009 4:13PM]

Dude, you seriously need to read the very long, but very, very good anandtech article.

Can't remember who linked to this on here yesterday but thank you good sir, I read every damn word and now know enough to lecture and bore other people in a way only us geeks know how.

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3531

[Ben @ Jun 2nd 2009 12:14PM]

This brings on a interesting concept for hard drives. With SSD being such a small form factor you could begin packing in RAID 5, RAID 0 and other types to "secure" your data. If one of the components fails, just replace and keep your data. No need to throw out the entire drive.

[Juke Box Hero @ Jun 2nd 2009 1:04PM]

RAID 0 actually does nothing to secure your data, if one component of a RAID 0 fails, all your data is lost. RAID 0 is all about lowering latencies and increasing throughput. You also can't do a RAID 5 on this particular device since there's only two internal drive components, it would have to be a mirror (RAID 1) if you want to secure your data.

I think the more interesting part of this is that within a 3.5" drive you can have the ultra low latencies of a SSD paired with the previously mentioned RAID 0 benefits. It's really the best of both worlds, the performance on this thing should be impressive to say the least.

As soon as they can fit more drive components to increase the number of "drives" in the RAID array, the performance will approach ludicrous speed.

[Christ G. @ Jun 2nd 2009 12:17PM]

This looks like the ADATA XPG 3.5" dual 2.5 SSD enclosure I've been waiting for since January... Let's hope this one has a more tangible ETA.

[bandigolo @ Jun 2nd 2009 12:39PM]

Time to break open the piggy bank(s).

[Dave @ Jun 2nd 2009 2:01PM]

I take one thanks about time someone was making 3.5 SSD's

[Lonnie McClure @ Jun 3rd 2009 1:14AM]

Too bad the pricing on this will be painfully high for most folks for the foreseeable future. Perhaps better for the low(er) end would be a 3.5 inch SSD with the capability to upgrade capacity as flash prices drop.

Regarding the use of 2.5 inch SSD units in desktops, I am a bit surprised some case maker has not started incorporating at least one 2.5 inch bay or mount in their designs (and I mean full size cases, not mini-ITX designs).