Enmotus MiDrive: An SSD using SLC and QLC memory Differently To Offer Better Endurance

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jan 14, 2020.

  1. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Likes Received:
    It's a bit of a weird press-release, but you might remember Enmotus, the company behind the AMD FuzeDrive. They have a new SSD concept SSD and are working with controller manufacturer Phison. The Mi...

    Enmotus MiDrive: An SSD using SLC and QLC memory
  2. Cidious

    Cidious Member Guru

    Likes Received:
    GB RTX 2070S G OC
    I'm currently using the paid versions of AMD StoreMi, FuzeDrive 1TB to support up to 1TB for the fast drive. And I've tiered my 1TB Sabrent Rocket 4.0 with my 660p 1TB as a game disk, making it effectively 1.81GB in size and gave it a 4GB DRAM cache. It's BLAZING fast big storage. Haven't noticed any slow down even over prolonged writes or copies of game installations. 2GB DRAM cache gave the same results as 4GB but I have 32GB 3800CL16 sitting mainly just half filled so 4GB it is.

    I have also paired the Rocket 4.0 with my 860 EVO 1TB and it gave me exactly the same results mainly.

    Their software is really good. The drive mentioned here works by the same principle as I read it and it should be good. A different approach but highly utilizable. I'm a big fan of their software. Even use it on my intel laptop with a 950 Pro 512GB and 2TB HDD. Works wonders there too!
  3. tunaphish6

    tunaphish6 Active Member

    Likes Received:
    Gigabyte GTX 970 G1
    I l love disk-caching as much as the next guy, but barring large-scale, high-end applications, I feel like caching is made redundant for the average consumer since the wide-spread adoption of SSD's.

    I used to love Intel's implementation--you just set it and it just worked, with little-to-no fear of data loss. But since switching to AMD's platform, while Enmotus's suite offers a granularity not present with Intel's solution, it also consequentially made it more complex and increases the risk of data loss. Twice, on separate occasions, I've experienced data loss, including one drive getting completely wiped. Sure, the software works, but the moment you try to reverse the changes--say, when you need to re-install the operating system, the software ends up kicking and screaming. I don't know if they ever improved the software, but it makes me wary of ever using it again.

    And for that matter, what am I trying to cache anyways? SSD's are cheap enough to use as gaming drives, and media drives shouldn't be touched anyways. Not only am I compromising the integrity of my amassed cat photo collection, but hard drives are already speedy enough as it is, spinning disks practically at the pinnacle of their technology. This is besides the fact most games really don't leverage speedy storage anyways, since many console ports pre-load assets since they're accommodating slow blu-rays.

    I don't know--it's a novel concept, but I feel like more straight-forward solutions are best; keep it simple. Every once and awhile I'm reminded even SSD's aren't infallible, and even moreso since the inception of QLC. Next thing I know, the drive bugs out keeps writing the same data back and forth between the SLC and QLC storage, using up invaluable writes.

Share This Page