The 1.2TB model uses <i>22 watts</i> for writing at 1200MB/s (54MB per second per watt). I guess performance comes at a power cost.<p>As a comparison, the 1TB Samsung 850 Evo uses 5.7W maximum for writing at 520MB/s (91MB per second per watt).
Does this remind anyone of the "Hard Card", from Plus Development? They were 3.5" hard drives mounted on an ISA card way back in the day. It's funny how technology is sometimes cyclical.
Ugh, I really wish the marketing people would pick different name for this evolution of SSD drives then NVMe. At least the NVM part stating: Non-Volatile Memory.<p>The current iteration of what we call NVM is just SSD on PCIe busses so they are not bound by the speed of SATA/SAS controllers.<p>Maybe it's just me but when I think NVM I think of Non-Volatile Memory something like RAM that doesn't go blank when you hit the power button. And like RAM can be mapped into (kernel or user) address space. And access to them go through processor caches (L2 or L3) strait into NVM.<p>The current SSD+ drives very much behave like the block devices of the old, just with a different host interface. Most importantly they can't be directly memory mapped without going through the page cache. That still leaves a lot of performance on the table (double copy, requiring RAM for page cache versus working set).
idle power consumption: 4 Watts - way too much for my taste... I can understand it needing 22 Watts during high speed writes but why this much during staying idle ?<p>for comparison I checked my external 2TB WD Passport 0820 harddisk - it uses 2.11 Watts when streaming HD video...
Wow. Pretty me too product from Intel. They even priced and sized it to not clash with Samsung, because it has nothing to make you pick it over SM951.<p>Not to mention you can cram SM951 into a laptop.