New (green) Intel CPUs january 18th and new SSDs/Pricecuts

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-17-2008, 12:38 PM
NeedMoMegaHurtZ

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteFireDragon

as for the SSD's, are there any benchmarks to compare the 80GB X25-M (MLC) to the 32GB X25-E (SLC)?

I haven't seen very many X25-E benchmarks yet, only HDTune & STR

Original Source
http://forum.notebookreview.com/show...08242&page=153
11-17-2008, 12:43 PM
ryboto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morais

argh, so no <65W dual cores 775? Might grab a 65W quad then :cool:

While it's rated for "65W", the E8500 only uses ~35-40W at most, so, if Intel wanted to they could tighten the ratings on those parts and rename them with the "s" ehancement also.
11-17-2008, 01:08 PM
WhiteFireDragon

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedMoMegaHurtZ

I haven't seen very many X25-E benchmarks yet, only HDTune & STR

Original Source
http://forum.notebookreview.com/show...08242&page=153

how come that looks like the same transfer rate and seek time as the X25-M? thought SLC were suppose perform better, not just last longer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryboto

While it's rated for "65W", the E8500 only uses ~35-40W at most, so, if Intel wanted to they could tighten the ratings on those parts and rename them with the "s" ehancement also.

how do you measure exactly how much power it consumes without muliplying the vcore x amps?
11-17-2008, 01:13 PM
FischOderAal

When you use SSDs it's all about random write and read... Some SSDs have serious troubles when under heavy load with many small files. Intel's SSDs seem to do best up to now from this point of view, but they are damn expensive.
11-17-2008, 01:26 PM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteFireDragon

how come that looks like the same transfer rate and seek time as the X25-M? thought SLC were suppose perform better, not just last longer.

how do you measure exactly how much power it consumes without muliplying the vcore x amps?

Its about write. MLC writes with like 70MB/sec. SLC writes with 200+

They read about equally as fast. And the seektime is about equal too.
11-17-2008, 01:39 PM
T_Flight

Quote:

Originally Posted by FischOderAal

When you use SSDs it's all about random write and read... Some SSDs have serious troubles when under heavy load with many small files. Intel's SSDs seem to do best up to now from this point of view, but they are damn expensive.

Too expensive! Man for dollar/GB these things are rediculous. It's probably gonna take 2 years for these to mature. Still looking for WD's solution now that they aquired Fujitsu. Should be interesting in the next couple of years, but until they get the capcity up and the price down, these things just aren;t cost effective.

For those that know me, they know I'm not one to be a penny pincher. I'll buy some topline expensive stuff, but these things are like throwing money into a fire pit right now.
11-17-2008, 01:49 PM
Helmore

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

Its about write. MLC writes with like 70MB/sec. SLC writes with 200+

They read about equally as fast. And the seektime is about equal too.

Intel claims write speeds of around 170 MB/s for their X25-E SSDs, but their claims of 70 MB/s write on their X25-M is seems to be reasonably conservative. All talking about sequential write speed ofcoure.
11-17-2008, 05:12 PM
Kingcarcas

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuDioFreaK39

LOL why would Intel throw a lower case "s" on the end of these models. It just makes everything seem so....plural. :ROTF:

How many Q9550seses do you want to buy? :ROTF: While we're at it i'll take one of those 160GB SSDs Salt Lake City editions :up:
11-17-2008, 05:31 PM
Polizei

Quote:

Originally Posted by T_Flight

Too expensive! Man for dollar/GB these things are rediculous. It's probably gonna take 2 years for these to mature. Still looking for WD's solution now that they aquired Fujitsu. Should be interesting in the next couple of years, but until they get the capcity up and the price down, these things just aren;t cost effective.

For those that know me, they know I'm not one to be a penny pincher. I'll buy some topline expensive stuff, but these things are like throwing money into a fire pit right now.

Dollar per gigabyte? Who cares? I know no one that needs more than 160GB for an OS/programs drive. Hell, I don't know anyone that needs more than 120.

If you were going to buy something like this for storage... why? More storage with slightly slower speeds using a large RAID array, plus you get redundancy. Why does storage need to be fast? Right, it doesn't.
11-17-2008, 11:37 PM
hecktic

with low TDP who wouldnt want this new "green view" hehe
11-19-2008, 12:00 AM
kaskuli

Q9550s - just what I've been waiting for :)
11-23-2008, 04:52 AM
Hornet331

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis..._Desktops.html

X9100/QX9300 new oc kings?

35W TDP for each :eek:
11-23-2008, 05:11 AM
tiro_uspsss

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

M for Mainstream (using MLC) and E for Extreme (using SLC) IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmore

Let me guess, the "E" in Intel X25-E stands for SLC....
Check the first Intel slide on this review here:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=3403
There it quite obviously says the M stands for Mainstream, at least that's the way it seems to me.

the anand page aint loading for me.. i'm pretty sure E is for Enterprise - the target market for the SLC SSDs ;)
12-21-2008, 03:33 PM
WhiteFireDragon

a one month bump :D

it's almost january, so how come the e5300 hasn't launched yet? it was scheduled on november 30. any updates on this? still waiting for that q9550s!
12-21-2008, 03:37 PM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiteFireDragon

a one month bump :D

it's almost january, so how come the e5300 hasn't launched yet? it was scheduled on november 30. any updates on this? still waiting for that q9550s!

http://geizhals.at/eu/?a=366768&t=al...ahme&vl=de&v=l

available since the 5th here. ;)
12-21-2008, 06:31 PM
RVWinkle

Q9550s 2.83 GHz 12MB 1333 MHz $369

If they're improving process and yields which is highly likely then this could be a sick competitor to the Phenom II. Looks like it could be a tough choice between two chips that will likely reliably hit 4ghz.
12-22-2008, 01:16 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVWinkle

Q9550s 2.83 GHz 12MB 1333 MHz $369

If they're improving process and yields which is highly likely then this could be a sick competitor to the Phenom II. Looks like it could be a tough choice between two chips that will likely reliably hit 4ghz.

Just get the regular Q9550 for that.
12-22-2008, 05:50 PM
ericware

Still so expensive though .. I expect a lower price :D
12-22-2008, 05:52 PM
Movieman

Yea, but where are the gainstowns?:D
12-23-2008, 02:53 AM
Nikolasz

I didnt buy for cristmass Q9550 for my self...
check this, this is riping off poor ppl! , price araund 355 euros :shakes:

http://www.comshop.si/Article.asp?articleid=58397
01-03-2009, 01:56 AM
LiquidReactor

Is there going to be a q9650s?
01-03-2009, 09:17 AM
MaxxxRacer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Movieman

Yea, but where are the gainstowns?:D

Your powerbill is a lost cause dave.. Just accept it.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page