Intel 34nm SSD released
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
-
- Posts: 2198
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
- Location: TN, USA
I'm sure I'd be OK if it were 40GB. I have over 100GB on my existing HD but the thing is when I buy the SSD I don't have to throw away my existing drive. It will just become a secondary drive for storage and any applications that don't fit on the SSD.
Forgive the godawful URL but this is the pricing range I look at for boot drives right now.
http://silentpcreview.pricegrabber.com/ ... &x=46&y=12]
SAMSUNG HD502HI 500GB 5400 RPM ~$55
WD Blue WD6400AAKS 640GB 7200 RPM ~65
WD Black WD6401AALS 640GB 7200 RPM ~75
Again I'm not worried about space. If the drive were fast it could be one tenth the size and I'd consider it a valuable piece of equipment.
But given the down side of SSDs (small random writes) I'm hesitant to pay hundreds of dollars for one.
That doesn't mean I won't do it, it just means the tipping point hasn't occurred for me yet. It is unavoidable, I don't know when, but I will buy an SSD for my own use and I fully expect to convert every PC within my domain to boot from SSDs in the future.
Forgive the godawful URL but this is the pricing range I look at for boot drives right now.
http://silentpcreview.pricegrabber.com/ ... &x=46&y=12]
SAMSUNG HD502HI 500GB 5400 RPM ~$55
WD Blue WD6400AAKS 640GB 7200 RPM ~65
WD Black WD6401AALS 640GB 7200 RPM ~75
Again I'm not worried about space. If the drive were fast it could be one tenth the size and I'd consider it a valuable piece of equipment.
But given the down side of SSDs (small random writes) I'm hesitant to pay hundreds of dollars for one.
That doesn't mean I won't do it, it just means the tipping point hasn't occurred for me yet. It is unavoidable, I don't know when, but I will buy an SSD for my own use and I fully expect to convert every PC within my domain to boot from SSDs in the future.
-
- Posts: 1406
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:28 pm
- Location: USA
Exactly. I think SSD is more analogous to a midrange or greater video card. Not necessary for most people (you can always get by with less by running your games at reduced settings), but desirous to enough that it can't really be considered a niche product. A quad-core CPU may be an even better analog, due to the benefits across a broad range of applications. I don't have a quad-core, a video card, or an SSD, even though I would get benefits from all of them, because the price is not right for me. There is nothing wrong with saying the price of SSD is still too high for you. Just don't argue about the price/GB -- that is silly. Just like 1 core of an i7 does not equal 1 core of a P4, 1 GB of a good SSD does not equal 1 GB of a conventional HDD.kaange wrote:Except that an SSD affects pretty much all usage of a PC while high end soundcard, audio-interface, video and RAID card etc are only relevent if you need those particular capabilities.Shamgar wrote:Let's agree for now that SSD is a "specialist" product, no different than buying a specialist expansion card like a high end soundcard, audio-interface, video and RAID card et al. As jessekopelman said, there's no use complaining about the prices for those who are now interested in them when people spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on other performance oriented gear.
-
- Posts: 1406
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:28 pm
- Location: USA
What are you talking about? Current SSD outperform even Velociraptor on 4kB random writes. Look at Anandtech's latest testing. The new Intel is 15X faster than a Velociraptor at small random writes. Even the current bargain champ, OCZ Agility, is 4X faster than a Velociraptor at this metric.dhanson865 wrote: But given the down side of SSDs (small random writes) I'm hesitant to pay hundreds of dollars for one.
-
- Posts: 2198
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
- Location: TN, USA
I was talking about SSDs in general. While it is true that the Intel SSDs blow away the competition they are not the entire category. It is also true that the specific synthetic test you link to is not the full usage profile of a drive.jessekopelman wrote:What are you talking about? Current SSD outperform even Velociraptor on 4kB random writes. Look at Anandtech's latest testing. The new Intel is 15X faster than a Velociraptor at small random writes. Even the current bargain champ, OCZ Agility, is 4X faster than a Velociraptor at this metric.dhanson865 wrote: But given the down side of SSDs (small random writes) I'm hesitant to pay hundreds of dollars for one.
The bargain champ OCZ Agility is still 3x the cost of a quality traditional hard drive. I'd gladly use one if I won it in a raffle but I'm not going to buy 50 of them tomorrow to start replacing drives in the PCs I manage.
I'm not saying SSDs should be avoided. I'm just saying I'll wait until they are better than traditional drives in even worst case scenarios and are cheaper than they are now.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...
I disagree. An SSD is more analogous to a high speed (whether multicore or high clockspeed) CPU as system and program files are continually accessed in most operations where the PC is the bottleneck rather than the user. These days, unless you are into video processing (or maybe folding/seti etc), there are few operations that mainstream users would perform that are CPU bound.jessekopelman wrote:Exactly. I think SSD is more analogous to a midrange or greater video card. Not necessary for most people (you can always get by with less by running your games at reduced settings), but desirous to enough that it can't really be considered a niche product. A quad-core CPU may be an even better analog, due to the benefits across a broad range of applications.kaange wrote:Except that an SSD affects pretty much all usage of a PC while high end soundcard, audio-interface, video and RAID card etc are only relevent if you need those particular capabilities.Shamgar wrote:Let's agree for now that SSD is a "specialist" product, no different than buying a specialist expansion card like a high end soundcard, audio-interface, video and RAID card et al. As jessekopelman said, there's no use complaining about the prices for those who are now interested in them when people spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on other performance oriented gear.
The optimal setup IMO would be to use an SSD for os/programs, a large RAM disk for temporary files (need 64 bit OS for something decent like 4Gb) and a HDD for common data storage. Bring on Windows 7 64 bit.
I wouldn't consider SSDs with the current JMicron controllers to be acceptable for anything but netbooks. As for replacing drives in current PCs, I would look at using SSDs as an upgrade option rather than machine replacement (I know that tax accounting practices sometimes prohibits this) since the speed benefit would be far greater than a CPU upgrade for anything bought in the last 3 years (aside from Celeron/Sempron/Atom CPU machines). Especially for a desktop, a 60Gb drive would be ample as the current HDD could be retained for data storage.dhanson865 wrote:I was talking about SSDs in general. While it is true that the Intel SSDs blow away the competition they are not the entire category.jessekopelman wrote:What are you talking about? Current SSD outperform even Velociraptor on 4kB random writes. Look at Anandtech's latest testing. The new Intel is 15X faster than a Velociraptor at small random writes. Even the current bargain champ, OCZ Agility, is 4X faster than a Velociraptor at this metric.dhanson865 wrote: But given the down side of SSDs (small random writes) I'm hesitant to pay hundreds of dollars for one.
I very much like the idea to use a small 80GB SSD for the system (OS and office, etc.)
And for my vids, mp3s and stuff I just continue using my Terrabyte HDD.
Dedicated for data storage only.
This way I'd feel relaxed enough to sit back and wait 1 year or more until SSDs prices (& more performance) have become really attractive - even for you guys here.
It would be ideal if I could hotplug the HDD when I need it and disconnect when I don't.
But that's not a real problem for me.
I'm surprised the market entry of Intel's new generation SSDs is going so swift and smooth.
Checked yesterday whether my usual retailer has the new SSDs already and there were only the 1st gen ones.
Checked just now and suddenly I found something ...
I'm planning to get one soon.
At least I don't burn as much money as I would have done a few weeks ago.
Yay !!!
And for my vids, mp3s and stuff I just continue using my Terrabyte HDD.
Dedicated for data storage only.
This way I'd feel relaxed enough to sit back and wait 1 year or more until SSDs prices (& more performance) have become really attractive - even for you guys here.
It would be ideal if I could hotplug the HDD when I need it and disconnect when I don't.
But that's not a real problem for me.
I'm surprised the market entry of Intel's new generation SSDs is going so swift and smooth.
Checked yesterday whether my usual retailer has the new SSDs already and there were only the 1st gen ones.
Checked just now and suddenly I found something ...
I'm planning to get one soon.
At least I don't burn as much money as I would have done a few weeks ago.
Yay !!!
I just noticed Anandtech has a review now, in addition to the original news story. They also have a follow-up about OCZ having to drop their prices now due to Intel's new pricing.
-
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 2:04 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Contact:
eh... I put a 128GB IDE SSD into my old Centrino laptop, and I have a 256GB SSD in my current laptop. The capacities are on par with notebook HDDs already, so it's really all about price now, how much are you willing to spend to get XX performance? You don't have to sacrifice on capacity any more...
Hi, I just checked with CrystalDiskMark the performance of my 40GB Seagate Barracude 7.200 ...
And here is the result of Intel's 2nd gen SSD drive.
Someone who just bought it, tested it straight away ...
What do you think ?
And here is the result of Intel's 2nd gen SSD drive.
Someone who just bought it, tested it straight away ...
What do you think ?
-
- Posts: 1406
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:28 pm
- Location: USA
What is the worst case scenario where a traditional drive can outperform an OCZ Agility? I think your line of argument has already been made redundant by the current generation of SSD. I have no problem with the argument that the performance increase is not worth the money (I fit this profile myself), but you can't claim it isn't there.dhanson865 wrote: I'm not saying SSDs should be avoided. I'm just saying I'll wait until they are better than traditional drives in even worst case scenarios and are cheaper than they are now.
-
- Posts: 2198
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
- Location: TN, USA
Short of having a few in hand I don't know what the worst case is. I'll take your word for it that the newest SSDs equal or beat a traditional 15k RPM hard drive in the worst case scenario but I'll still have those what if thoughts running through my head for a while.jessekopelman wrote:What is the worst case scenario where a traditional drive can outperform an OCZ Agility? I think your line of argument has already been made redundant by the current generation of SSD. I have no problem with the argument that the performance increase is not worth the money (I fit this profile myself), but you can't claim it isn't there.dhanson865 wrote: I'm not saying SSDs should be avoided. I'm just saying I'll wait until they are better than traditional drives in even worst case scenarios and are cheaper than they are now.
Oh and for anyone that has the 34nm Intel SSD don't use a BIOS password or more importantly if you have a BIOS password don't change it or remove it.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15827
-
- Posts: 2198
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 am
- Location: TN, USA
Is that a WD Greenpower 3.5" drive it is sitting on?Cov wrote:Not only the difference in size is huge, but also the weight ... 730 g vs 80 g !!
WD5000AACS Weight 0.60 kg (Green)
WD6400AACS Weight 0.60 kg (Green)
WD6400AAKS Weight 0.63 kg (Blue)
WD6401AALS Weight 0.69 kg (Black)
WD5000AADS Weight 0.73 kg (Green)
Looks like it is one of the heavier greenpowers. But even 600g vs 80g is a huge difference.
I still can't understand why that happens. It makes absolutely no sense.dhanson865 wrote:Oh and for anyone that has the 34nm Intel SSD don't use a BIOS password or more importantly if you have a BIOS password don't change it or remove it.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15827
-
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:32 pm
- Location: Mexico
I have XP sp3, office 2003 and half-dozen another programs, that fit all in 5.8GB.qviri wrote:JazzJackRabbit wrote:I have no idea how people can live with 80GB, much less 30GB. I have Vista 64 Ultimate installed, Visual Studio 2008, SQL Management Studio 2008, three games, Valve HL2 series, all of them including Orange Box, Prey, RTCW:ET, a bunch of smaller programs to work with MKV and SRT files,
For me a 30GB SSD would be enough, also for my files (office documents, some photos and mp3s). But the price of SSDs is too high for now.
-
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:05 pm
- Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
-
- Posts: 1406
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:28 pm
- Location: USA
I'm sure that's what the guy who wrote the original BIOS said to his boss when informed of the bug.Matija wrote:I still can't understand why that happens. It makes absolutely no sense.dhanson865 wrote:Oh and for anyone that has the 34nm Intel SSD don't use a BIOS password or more importantly if you have a BIOS password don't change it or remove it.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15827
Sorry, but what question is that ? What does a password do ?
Take a guess ...
Doh ? Doh !
Lucky are those who are able to use Google
Take a guess ...
Doh ? Doh !
Lucky are those who are able to use Google
Last edited by Cov on Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.