Intel Cuts the Prices on Some of its High-Performance Solid-State Drives

Now we are talking!.......

Time to buy X25-M 160GB Intel SSD for MBP!

 

Good news, but it's still too high.

 

Actually I saved money to buy X25-160 model. now i can save few £££

 

still higher than i'd like (obviously). That's alot to be paid for 80GB of MLC memory, and 32GB of SLC.

 

$250-$300 and I'll bite, Intel. In the meantime, don't let Samsung and Mtron outdo you

 

Tempted.
Seriously tempted.

 

$200-$250 for me. Great news though. We're getting there!

 

Maybe $200-250 for a 320GB SSD lol

 

By the time I have the cash to afford the upgrade, I'll be looking at a 256GB SSD in the $200-300 range, I betcha.

 

Come on Samsung and Mtron, fire your next salvo of super drives upon us!

 

What happened was that the upcoming price cuts arrive a little earlier for the distributors. Just like how a few weeks before a CPU launch you can buy systems using the CPU.

EDIT: It's actually $525 to $390 not $595 to $390 for the 80GB part.. Those who were paying close attention to the SSD world would know Intel cut their prices not too long after they introduced their X25-M devices.

 

I am buying mine when Windows 7 comes out!

 

Intel's prices are still too high for what you get.

 

The value proposition is personal. Some will value the increased performance and feel it's worth the premium. Others, like yourself don't find the increased performance worth the additional expense.

I appreciate your point of view, but for myself, if the price for the 160GB was < $400 (and it's headed that way) I'd buy one.

 

While other MLC drives still have stigma associated with them, we need more reliable reviews for all the new SSD products coming out. But from what I've seen/heard in these forums, for example, the G.Skill Titan 256GB has similar benchmarks compared with Intel's 80GB, yet they are both priced at $500, even now with the reduced price, Intel is around $400. Both seem to offer improved performance in comparison to the best mechanical hard drives, the difference between the two don't seem significant enough to warranty the difference in capacity for the price. As you pointed out, value is a matter of point of view. If you believe it's worth it, I might disagree, but you are entitled your own opinion and it's perfectly valid. The more points of view we have then the more info for potential buyers to decide upon.

 

Exactly. There is still no way they'll be selling me a new SSD at the current prices, even after the price drop.

 

yeh i dont get why people are buying up these no name SSDs.

i'll wait around til Intel's prices fall or until WD/Seagate join the party.

 

'

 

I don't know, it's still good stuff. We're just not running out and buying them up in droves for the same reason we're not all running SCSI on our desktops. Prices for SCSI never really dropped low enough to attract the mainstream market. I'm sure SSD's will, it's just a matter of how long before it happens.

 

That's really a fishy thing to say. SCSI's were NEVER made for mainstream computing. It was meant for servers. Few benchmarks out there shows SCSI and SAS drives perform much better than the fastest mainstream HDDs, yet they are slower in actual PC benchmarks. These drives were meant to be optimal for server usage.

It's like saying we'll see Xeons and Opterons cheap enough for mainstream users to buy. That will never happen since those are intended for a different market.

 

The analogy may have been off, but I did agree that I also think the prices will drop eventually. We're just in the early adoption phase right now.