The new SSD Thread (Benchmarks, Brands, News and Advice)

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=29437&vpn=CT32GBFAB0&manufacture=CRUCIAL TECHNOLOGY

And the Crucial drive from another link has a shipping weight of 0.5lbs. That's not enough to conclude it. The packaging on Intel drive might be bigger.

Do you think it makes sense NCIX is selling 5 at a time?? I'm pretty sure its a mistake on Intel's website or a misunderstanding.

It probably means its sold to OEMs in pack of 5 for $730 each. Intel does not sell their products directly.

 

So Intel sells to OEMs $730/5 and the OEMs sell $730 for one? LoL. **** 400% profit.

 

No, they just sell 5 at a time, for $8/GB EACH drive, so $640, and the whole 5 package would be $3200. Like how they refer to CPU pricing as per 1k or 10k units, not individual CPUs. And they get $90 profit per drive.

Yea, the SSDSA2MH080G1C5 means 5 pack, but its just product code. NCIX might order 5, but they will sell each seperately.

Anyways, I will purchase it as soon as its available so maybe i'll post some performance numbers.

 

If a 60GB by Intel is selling for $740 or so, and is not SLC, then it is the same ting with prices we have always had deja vu all over again. No thanks, at $740, I do not care how fast it is. Now a fast 256GB for $740, that would be more like it

Patriot and OCZ etc are selling a 60GB for $250 or less, so what is up with this Intel crappy price? I think that will keep the little folks in business MUCH longer, rather than get market share for Intel.

 

they most likely get 90% profit since this is new technology ..

 

The OEMs, not Intel. Intel sells for $640, stores sell for $740.

 

>_<, IMO these Intel drives are a huge rip if they're not coming in packets of 5. The read and write speed while impressive, does not give reason for its ridiculous price.

Back to patriot for me. 175MB/s + 100MB/s for $200 while intel sells 250MB/s + 70MB/s for $700+.

 

Are you kidding, the Intel SSD's are probably made for around $50 USD in parts and maybe say $20 each to pay for manufacturing machines and electricity bills. So the drive costs about $70 net, and the company is making the rest in profit.
Samsung SSD's are made for around $60 in parts, and Intel manufacturers their parts in China and Thailand, which is cheaper than to manufacture in Korea like Samsung, so the Intel product should be even cheaper to make.

SSD's are way too expensive, I wouldnt spend $700+ on a SSD, whoever does is crazy, the performance gain is not very much over a $150 7200rpm 320gb mobile drive.

K-TRON

 

Intel is claiming a huge increase in small random write performance maybe even surpassing the fastest current generation SLC-based drives. If Patriot has the same implementation of their MLC-drive as OCZ and RiData has, it will be a drive with extremely poor small random write performance.

http://www.alternativerecursion.info/?p=106

http://www.alternativerecursion.info/?p=276

There are a number of complaints that the extremely poor small random write performance of the OCZ Core drive results in the OS stalling and system becoming non-responsive while the drive struggles.

If Intel delivers on its promise, then their price-performance ratio will be the best (unless the competitors lower their prices or introduce better products).

 

what are you up to? does it matter to be SLC or MLC? _NO_. never did. all that matters is how they perform. and those drives look to outperform anything we've seen yet, in about any benchmark. they'll outperform patrion and ocz by a HUGE margin, espencially in (random) writes.

this of course, _if_ the numbers are right.

so why should they be the same price? i mean, it would be awesome if they where. but compared to the high-end of now the prices are still awesome.

i'll definitely get one or two of them for my main systems if they work as advertised in the first online tests. i prefer to pay more and _get_ more.

performance-gain/$ is much higher than in other drives. so even while they're not that cheap, thei're worth much more, too.

 

and if you don't want to believe me.. remember the ocz has only the ability to do 4 random writes per second!! (see alternativerecursion links above).

i would never pay _any_ cent for a drive with 4 random writes per second. i would have payed that much the times where home computers haven't existed yet, possibly. but today? i could use a backup-tape, it'll be faster to write to..

one of my requirements is to be able to stream a constant (small) amount of data to disk (recording audio), reading random files from disk (playing audio, random seeking and skipping), and still be able to use the os completely fluently and have not ONE audio stutter in hours. that's a requirement as a dj. the ocz can't deliver. it's _useless_ for me.

for me, the ocz could only be placed in a silent pc, as secondary storage disks.

i know what it means to have low random writes. i do have an asus eee. i know _exactly_ what that means. not acceptable.

 

(oh and sorry for the tone.. i'm up early today.. and i'm not one of those in good mood when getting up early.. )

i have to pay much for all ssds, compared to harddisks. so i prefer to pay more, but then have a replacement that is worth it. not spending less, and have something possibly a bit faster in some cases than the old ordinary disk.

 

Most of us here are well aware of write issues with the OCZ SSD now, with all the bad reviews circulating. However, it does not mean that the patriot drive will be the same. While that is quite likely, we can't jump to conclusions.

Still, unless your time is THAT valuable, the $700+ Intel drives are nowhere NEAR worth buying.

Even if the Patriot turns out to be a bummer like the OCZ, I'd still much rather buy it than drop $700 that'll worth like $200 next year. However, if the patriot does suck, I'm going to continue waiting 'til something good and cheap shows up..

 

Two points. First, SLC has been around ALOT longer, and it is my belief that it is inherently more reliable. I may be wrong, I may be right, but that is my belief. If I was flying a Jet Fighter, I would want SLC in it.

Two: We are all waiting for Higher performance and LOWER prices, not higher performance and HIGHER prices. Some are also waiting for BIGGER drives. Me, I do not care so much about that.

Above said, if Intel comes out with a rock solid groundbraking reliable drive, it would be worth more. The question is, HOW MUCH MORE? Dave

 

But seriously, even if they do what they claim on paper, do you think it's worth that money? Heck, two of those guys cost the amount my MSI would cost with a more basic SSD.

And also, try to avoid triple posting . It would save space to merge those three posts into one

 

You are right. Obviously Intel is able to churn out increadible performance from MLC-drives (if their claims are correct) so others should be to. I have no idea how good Patriot's R&D is.

In regards to your argument about value, you are however incorrect. Preferences cannot be rationalized i.e. your purchase decision might be purely driven by the value of the time-saving delivered by the SSD. Another person's purchase decision might be driven by the personal satisfaction of having a snappy system. There is no way to say who is right and wrong.

Obviously you yourself have a very impressive system (judging by your signature). I wonder if your purchase decision was purely driven by the value of the time-saving delivered by that particular system vs less powerful and less expensive systems. ;-)

 

Sorry if it I made it sound this way, but it wasn't at all what I was trying to say. I was mainly trying to say that if the current information is right, manufacturers are just overpricing these SSDs, and in reality, it doesn't cost them nearly as much to make. This can be especially noticable in the more expensive drives. This mainly happens because of the lack of competition in the current SSD market. As more and more companies join the trend, the competition will eventually (and probably soon) drive down the pricing of the SSDs. Therefore, I don't think the Intel SSDs are truly worth getting, because I'm almost sure that others are going to produce faster and cheaper SSDs. In my opinion, Intel has placed these drives at a very uncompetitive price.

I personally have a lust for snappy and quick systems, but sometimes, I need to just slow down and ask myself if the money is worth spending to satisfy that lust. The truth is, I could wait a while for the SSD prices to change and become more reasonable, and it is possible for me to live with a slower system. After all, I've lived with systems with slow drives until now, and another half a year wouldn't hurt. Again, I can't say this applies for everyone, as it is subjective.

Part of my purchase was driven by my want to play games at high settings with decent FPS. I suppose one can say that I upped the processor because I wanted to save a bit of time, since I frequently do processor intensive tasks. Over a long period of time, I believe the time that the P9500 can save for me over P8400/8600 will eventually come close, if not pay off the premium I have to pay for it. In addition, I get to enjoy a slightly snappier system. However, I have a line drawn on how much I should spend to make a snappier rig, and unfortunately the $500 premium for increased write speed (not too significant) just doesn't cut it. Everyone draws that line at different places, so again, someone else may have a different opinion.

 

sure. but having a good backup system for my pc, i don't care about that in my system. buying a good product from intel is normally reliable enough. in a server system, i'd choose the SLC version, too, if money allows it (and hardware costs are normally never an issue in servers)

what we want, in all ends, is more gain for the money. those disks are priced lower than the current top end products (mtrons, memorights), but may provide much higher performance. so it's a step in the right direction. lower price and higher performance. _IF_ they deliver.

it's less than comparable drives now. comparable not by technology, but by actual feature set (performance, performance in bottlenecks).

and i tend to spend much on new stuff, as i don't want incremental small evolutionary steps. you don't feel those. i prefer to pay much for something that's worth much, and then actually feel happy to SEE the gains everywhere compared to the last thing.

my last pc was a singlecore celeron. now i have a quadcore core2. my last screen was 19", now i have 24".

always do steps that are 1) worth the money (good price/performance ratio) and 2) big enough that you feel the steps. (else, 1) fails, as it's not worth the money)

i know that in my systems, most ssd's would not worth a cent, as they are just too slow to show any performance gain. it's a vista with 4gb ram, a quadcore, and currently a raid0 of 2 500gb disks. that, together with superfetch, is fast enough to make ssd's mostly negitible. the intel ones could change that, as it outperforms any bottleneck my system currently can have by a big margin. => good

and what would i gain from getting your MSI? i have the systems already. now it's about doing a step that enhances them. buying a new system that isn't really faster is of no gain.

yes, spending money that would be enough for a new system is sometimes worth it. 1x system with 2x speed >> 2x system with 1x speed. i only work on one system at a time..

as you wish.. as i said, early in the morning....

 

I think there is too much unknown about Intell products. All guesses and innuendo. I am going to wait until actual products are available and test reviews are out before I make any more judgements/guesses about them. I too would trust Intel for a reliable product, for all the obvious reasons.

I too like a snappier system, but like the man said, I need to slow down with that as there is no real business reason for me, I just like speed, and there are too many speed limits on our brick and mortar highways

I am also interested to see how the Patriot's SSD's shake out. The exciting thing about this is that there is still room for a smaller player to surprise us.

What is really amazing to me is how wrong I was before this all started happening. I assumed that all drives would be the same speed, as for the most part, RAM is the same. Boy, it is even more important than ever to know what one is buying. I wish www.storagereview.com would do the job on SSD's that they have done on spinning drives. Yay Eugene!

 

Unfortunately, I have found an easy way to motivate (deceive) myself when it comes to justifying expensive hardware purchases. I just think how much it usually costs when I am having a really nice night out, clubbing in the city. After that exercise in mental self deception, I am able to buy anything without feeling guilty ;-).

 

I quit smoking 8 years ago. Now I can afford anything How do you think I got this computer???

 

I sure wait till thei're available and tested to judge. But still, from what i've seen from various sites (the IDF had them reallive, the numbers they state _are_ real, as seen from the ones who where there), so it's not just plain hope.

but yes, waiting as always

 

I want one more for my desktop than my laptop. I could make do with 64, but 128 would be more than enough for me. With 64Gb I would have to offload less used stuff, archive what neded to be archived, and have a nice USB 250GB ready at hand.

So, speed is first, with price a close second, and capacity a more distant third. Come on Intel! Make me proud! Dave

 

Gotta 64Gb Memoright GT sitting here that I haven't even had the time to open yet...

eheheheh

 

I'll be right over to remove it from your place so you have more useable space

 

And if need any more help cleaning up some of your other unopened SSDs, give me a shout

 

newkleer already linked to my thread a few pages back (waves)

4x 32GB OCZ Core SSD ICH10R raid 0 128k stripe
WinXP Pro SP3

no stuttering/freezes at all!

 

Man look at those numbers eh.... Prob I see is I cannot find a laptop to raid 4 ssds in eheheheh.

And as for the ssds..only 2 left are the Samsung and the new Memoright...may be selling one... I am tempted to do it and go the 128Gb mls route but there have been so many issues with the mlc drives...

 

Ok, what's the most futureproof ssd hard drive (combo) I can get, right now, or like by next week, in a laptop. All I need is 32GB. What's the best offering in a laptop and where is this offering.
I'll need to make the purchase soon
SLC, MLC? what??
I guess, the real question from someone like me is, is it economically viable to opt into ssd right now? Say you only need 32-64 GB.
What's all this about software that lets you overcome some random-read/write deficiencies(?) of OCZ SSDs, it sounds intriguing, does it work?
Okay, I'll believe it does. So now, pretending that we believe it does - what do you recommend?

 

well we havent really seen anyone outside of the place that sells it, confirm that it does work? i havent seen any independant reviews. though the theory sounds about right, and sounds like what intel have done in the firmware of their drives (remapping random writes to become linear). sounds like a fairly big risk

but if you need one, this one is probably ok (ocz/samsung sata II, not the core series):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227294
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147053

maybe compare it with wherever you can get a SLC mtron from (which should also be fine) and go from there

 

I ran HDtach on my Ridata 128 GB MLC SSD and the read speed is at 138.9 MB/s and the average read is 99.7 MB/s.

 

Very nice. How is the drive in general use? Any stutters? Dave

 

Dave,
In general use the drive doesn't stutter. I was encoding a video while watching a video and the system didn't stutter once. I bought the drive from allstarshop for 475 USD back in July.

 

^ lol, you have Red Alert 2 .. used to play that some 8 years ago or so, lol

try C&C 3, what an improvement

anyways, the access time of that SSD looks somewhat high (0.4ms)

 

Thanks. That sounds like a pretty good drive. I found this link to an excellent round up. Really excellent. Apologies if I found it here

http://hothardware.com/Articles/FourWay-SSD-RoundUp-OCZ-Super-Talent-Mtron/?page=1

Dave

 

thanks for link...havent seen that before. unfortunately another average review that doesnt seem to know how to test random write which is the only things users will notice very obviously between all the drives...we've seen sequential tests for most drives and theyre always pretty normal, but very few reviewers bother with random write test, surprising because if they knew anything about ssd's they would know its the one thing thats a must in any review.

 

I have C&C 3 but I can't wait till Red Alert 3. This drive is MLC so the access time will be slower than a SLC drive.

 

Actually the most important stat in real world usage is read rates, random or sequential. When you're loading new apps, or your apps are loading new data, it's all about the read rates. Writes are generally cached, so whatever their actual rate, they almost never slow down your programs.

 

besides read speed, the other most important part is just "where is it's bottleneck?". whenever you hit a bottleneck at a drive, this will immedially result in a freezing system, a stuttering, or something (or just a hugely blocked system in any form).

these are the things where people start to think their system is slow. on the asus eee, my firefox boots in less than 2 seconds. same configuration on the 2710p: 1minute. still, the 2710p normally feels faster, when ever it's writing something to disk. the eee just crawls while storing something there.

but the intel one should fix that bottleneck by allowing concurrent reads while writing (at least that's what they have written in their papers). so, a really slow random write speed wouldn't matter that much on the intels.

 

Intel's super fast SSD benchmarked:

X25-M

http://www.3dprofessor.org/Reviews Folder Pages/INTELSSD/INTELSSD1.htm

The latency on write doesn't even register

 

thats the sequential write latency, not random write, so cant read too much into that (even the ocz core drives had low sequential write latency). i sent an email to the website seeing if they can do random write tests if they still have the drive.

the pcmark 2005 file write 31mb/s result isnt particularly encouraging, though the other numbers look good.

 

hope to see some random write tests, and espencially some reading-while-writing multitask tests (this is where ocz often fail, hanging the system).

but for a start, they look gorgeous.

 

never mind

 

More preview/reviews of the Intel SSD!

http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/Intel-X25M-80GB-SATA-Solid-State-Drive-Intel-Ups-The-Ante/
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=616&type=expert
http://techreport.com/articles.x/15433

 

Tom's Hardware weighs in on the subject, and gives a price - $595, with shipments starting....... TODAY?
Be still, my credit card.

 

..and check anandtech.com . Nice review of the OCZ series problems too.

 

God that's costy. Don't they have a 32GB version i can afford?

 

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403&p=8

i've got what i need to know. intel, i'll come

 

If the 160GB is at a decent price point in 2009, I'll be getting that.
I've got enough external storage to make do, and moving my 320GB internal into a 2.5" SATA enclosure would solve the smaller size problem.
80GB at $600 is a little too bourgeoisie for my tastes.

 

So much for affordable SSDs...

I am still awaiting a review on the OCZ Core v2 though.