Printable View
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...w/newfront.jpg
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sho...spx?i=3607&p=1
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...e=expert&pid=1
http://hothardware.com/Articles/Inte...rmance-Review/
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1022/1/
http://techreport.com/articles.x/17269
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/storage...d-roundup.html
Yeah for faster random read performance. :)
Seems more onboard ram helps.
We have a new RR and RW King :up:
Awesome product Intel :clap:
Perkam
looks like its bottlenecked:(
cool
how so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
Price isn't bad either. Within the next few weeks might be a good time to jump...but with the way prices have been falling it might be best to wait.
Hell yeah, finally. Affordable Intel drives. I think I'm gonna go shopping for some 80's and a 160 for my lappy very soon :D
when are the new intel ones with the new controllers coming out?
they are already out, they are listed everywhere and some shops have them listed as incoming in the next 2-3 days.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangekiwii
Sweet, faster than the SLC's even. I love it.
iim gonna wait atleast a month, see what other companies are doing with 34nm and if prices will be hammered by end of q3
Sequential read performance by SATA 3Gbps interface.Quote:
Originally Posted by lowfat
Intel still seems to be the best for random read and write, but how much do we need this for desktop applications?
alot (or by this are you talking about sequential?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Firestrider
boot up times will be much better, and many games will see much better loading times
wait for the anandtech real world test, probably done by tomorrow
I want to see the performance of an X25-E with this new controller. Sequential Writes are already awesome with the X25-E (but would get a minor boost), along with a decent boost for Sequential Read and both Random Reads & Writes.Quote:
Originally Posted by RagzaroK
I have my doubts the differences will be all that much actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
sequential write times. sadly, the intel drive gets beaten by a WD velociraptor; and i think write times are important when installing programs/similar activities.Quote:
Originally Posted by lowfat
a lot, most of the tasks your hard drive performs are random read/writes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Firestrider
i plan on getting one of these asap; finally SSDs are getting cheaper. hopefully these drives will have a large impact on the pricing of other SSDs.
http://www.pcper.com/comments.php?nid=7528
Less detailed than Anand's preview.
Thats sweet news. I'm definitely getting a 160gb one. I might wait until Windows 7 is released, or I might just go ahead and get one now. Can't decide.
Methinks I am going to get a 160gb X25-M G2 as soon as I can :D. I may go for the 80 though if the price/GB is about the same... I have a 64GB Samsung SLC SSD I'm using now and it's just a scrap too small (60gb formatted). I think the 80GB might fit everything I want with room for more later, just fine, though it never hurts to have the extra room. The 'Bay price for my drive is actually pretty darn high still for recent sold auctions and would nearly cover the 160, so it's just a question of whether or not I need the extra room or if I want extra money :p: .
Links? I've only found one shop with them on a pre-order over in the U.S.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
NOW they conroed the SSD market.
Next up, graphics.Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Hertz
Intel X25-M 'G2' 160GB SSD Review
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...e=expert&pid=1
thanks for the link!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Hertz
This drive is cheaper per GB than all but a few of the Samsung Gen 2 drives, and it's performance is in a completely separate league. OCZ, Corsiar, G.Skill, SuperTalent, and others are going to have to drop their 60/64GB drives to $150 tops or they just won't sell.
That was either a typo or the most clever pun I've seen in a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Hertz
Good show.:clap:
how has intel conroed the ssd market... geez... did you even look at the graphs and read the previews?
the new drive is slightly faster in some tests and slightly to notably slower in others... it has a much worse read speed, that seems to be the only drawback...
even in benchmarking you wont notice a notable diference between gen1 and gen2...
and in real world usage you will DEFINATELY not notice if you are on a G1 or G2... or third party SSD for that matter...
intels G2 is the fastest, overall... by a tiny tiny advantage from what ive seen so far...
that doesnt really make them the best drive, not at all, pricing will decide that...
Looks to me as the performance is barely noticable. But it is the price that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. :)
Intel undercut the competition on pricing with a greatly superior product... what are you looking at is my question.
I'm thinkin how long will Intel hold the lead, and the slight gap due to lower pricing vs. other SSD makers. Having other manufactures(with their controllers) catching up on Intel is a good thing for us.
Is there a good explanation of the SLC/MLC lifetime differences, and other relevant technologies?
what price? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by lowfat
im refering to the articles in the first post of this thread... and you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Telperion
you guys are so easy PR victims... :P
i admit anandtech is doing a real good job at making those drives look nice, but come on, look at the numbers and draw your own conclusion please...
1.)
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sho...spx?i=3607&p=3Quote:
The new 34nm drives were supposed to start shipping yesterday, but I've yet to see them available online. It's also worth mentioning that Intel doesn't give out street pricing, only 1,000 unit pricing. The street price of the X25-M G2 drives could be higher at first, similar to what we saw with the 1st gen drives, eventually leveling off below the 1Ku pricing.
2.)
retail prices will be higher, at least initially, but what the h3ck lets say the prices drop real fast and the competition does NOT lower their prices.
anand is doing a good job at not directly comparing drives, as it would show how intels new ssds arent anything revolutionary at all...
sorted by price:
$225 Intel X25-M 80GB
$223 Patriot Torqx 64GB
$218 OCZ Vertex 64GB
$177 OCZ Agility 64GB
OOOOPpps? whats that? Intels new ssd is the most expensive?
and thats the 1ku price and retail will most likely be even higher?
yes, its 64gb vs 80gb so the intel drive gets you 16gb more... i doubt this changes anybodys buying decision though... especially since you can get a comparable ssd for almost 50$ less for some time already...
sorted by price:
$440 Intel X25-M (34nm) 160GB
$389 OCZ Summit (Samsung) 128GB
$385 OCZ Vertex (Indilinx) 128GB
$365 Patriot Torqx (Indilinx) 128GB
$329 OCZ Agility (Indilinx, non-Samsung Flash) 128GB
OOOOOOOOOOOOOooppps???
Intels new ssd is 50-110$ more expensive than the competition?
and this is not the final street price but the 1ku price?
here its 32gb diference in size, but again, i doubt anybody cares if performance is comparable and price is 50-100$ less...
so please stop following anand on his intel bias trip trying to make this look like the next best thing after sliced bread when all intel did was introduce sliiiightly faster ssds that cost notably more than the competition. yes, the fastest ssd is from intel, but its also notably more expensive and how much the extra performance actually matters in real world scenarios id really like to see... all at and pcp ran so far are synthetic server benchmarks...
thank you :toast:
EDIT: im totally open for reviews to show that the new ssds are really better and faster than competing ssds in real world perf and worth the price premium, or hey, lets hope prices of the intel ssds go down, who knows... but from what ive seen so far this is nothing but a PR spin, and its a cheap and bad one...
sayya, you are on right track..
what is surprising that other manufacturers are so slow to lower prices. Maybe 34nm takes some time for other.
64gb 150$.. I would go for it instantly.
Agility or Intel, no much difference ;) Beat me if you want :D
I bet the price difference we have been seeing between Intel's and others will reappear once the competition will get their hands on Samsung/Toshiba 32/30nm flash later in the fall. I bet they both are aiming to release drives with inhouse controllers at Win7 launch time, so I doubt Intel will be enjoying their advantage of 34nm flash for long. Sandisk's drives have been due for sometime already... I wonder what's taking them so long?
On a sidenote; small random writes are very much unimportant in desktop usage.
And interesting to see Intel has expanded their DRAM cache - I thought cache was just means to patching bad controllers.
this
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...=expert&pid=11
is a nice feature, no?
I believe the only ssd listed above that does this is the summit
i don't wanna spread falsehood, someone please correct me if i'm wrong, or fill in details
EDIT: actually, i thought i remember reading on the ocz forum that in order for Summit to TRIM (right?) it should be left on but idle for ~12 hours, whereas the G2 appears to autocorrect even while HDTach is running.
they will be higher initially I agree but the intel $/GB is better than VertexQuote:
Originally Posted by saaya
and to boot you get something that rules the roost at random reads/writes
its the new conroe of SSDs like it or not
Yup... $/gb is lower, and the speed is better for what matters and overall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Levish
LOL. I hope not.Quote:
Originally Posted by PCPer
edit: OnT: Why are Intel's MLC sequential write speeds so much behind the competition? Is there a definite optimizational trade-off between "RW" speeds and "SW" speeds on MLC drives? Or are they deliberately and artificially hampering their own drives, so as not to push the progress too quickly, in turn allowing themselves to reduce/post-pone future R&D costs?
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...tCode=10010790
$230 retail for 80gb G2. Saaya, you are wrong. OOOOOOOOPS!
The only ssd that comes close to intel's performance are the barefoot based controllers + samsung ssd which costs around $220 for 64gb (formatted capacity is 60gb, whereas Intel's 80gb SSD is the formatted capacity). So at most you'll be paying an extra $20 for an extra 20GB + higher performance.
Cant decide if I should buy the new 80Gb intel and replace my 60Gb Vertex in my Desktop, seems like gains are minimal. Would be nice to throw the Vertex in the laptop though
+1....Quote:
Originally Posted by HKPolice
Inded, intel has now the price/performance corwn in that segmant.Quote:
Originally Posted by HKPolice
There 80gb MLC costs as much as others (Indilex or Samsung based) MLC 60-64Gb SDDs. And till the others don't cut prices this is a valid argument.
Maybe anad only show 4k wirtes, but thats the worse case and every other case only gets better, so intel drives will be on top in every other random read/write scenario to.
No, the difference between G2 and other drives will be smaller in other situations as we go from Random 4K -> seq. reads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
The write performance however is superbly over what the competition offers though.
I do wonder how much of it is the cache however!
Now that's one thing that I find curious (bold quoted text). I suppose that when you're talking about "formatted capacity" you're referring to the units conversion (they say "64GB" referring to "64,000,000,000 bytes", when "64,000,000,000 bytes" are really "59.61GB" because 1KB isn't 1000B but 1024B, and the same with MB and GB). The same thing why 1TB drives are not 1TB drives but 1,000,000,000,000B drives, or 931.32GB drives (0,91TB).Quote:
Originally Posted by HKPolice
60/64GB SSD's are using, AFAIK, 8x8GB flash memory chips, and Intel 80GB SSD's are using, AFAIK, 10x8GB flash memory chips, so I'd have thought that Intel 80GB drives are in fact 80,000,000,000B=74,51GB drives when using the x1024 convention instead of the x1000 convention.
Not that it matters much, but it's my curiosity bitting me again: are really 80GB Intel drives 80GB=85,899,345,920B drives, or are they 74,51GB=80,000,000,000B as the 10x8GB chips had made me think?
All you proved is that the intel drives a better $/gb ratio compared to its rivals bar the lower end Agility drive.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Saaya wrong? Has that ever happened before? :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by HKPolice
These look great! :up:
Makes you wonder if their gpu's will do this as well when they arrive. :shrug:
They're 80,025,219,072 bytes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Farinorco
Hahaha!Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Hertz
I'm glad I waited to make the transition to SSDs. I'll be purchasing two of the 80GB variant...one for the mythtv htpc and one for my everyday workstation.
Whats the ETA on other companies moving to 34nm?
Thank you, so they are 80,025,219,072 = 74,53GB drives, as I thought (that is, 80 thousend millions bytes, not 80GB by the x1024 convention).Quote:
Originally Posted by cx-ray
So when comparing, we should talk about 64GB vs 80GB, or 60GB vs 75GB. Got it.;)
Yeah, OOOOPpps Intel's nets you 20 more GB at the same price point, with the exception of the Agility which is in a completely different performance market.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Stop being so arrogant and assuming I'm worshiping Anand's every word, I've been following SSDs for well over a year and I think I can draw my own conclusions without being fed them by a website.
Anand's cost/GB chart is right. You are the one misrepresenting here ...Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
The cost should be compared per GB. The Intel drives are most established and recommended so right now the Intel X25-M 'G2' is my choice. I'm not upgrading till October when Windows 7 comes out so things might change.
i agree with the 80gb drive, for a desktop OS drive, i wouldnt thing about intel drive, 60 gb agility is super ok XDQuote:
Originally Posted by saaya
for a laptop, 160gb is the smallest i would go for, so the intel drive is the only option... i would love the competing drives to get lower priced, and be able to get a 256gb ssd for my laptop :P
i think a 128GB vertex drive on 34nm will be the choice for me, once they make that transition, intel may not be the best $ per GB for a very good SSD (sure they may be better in some cased, but probably negligible for my uses, keyword MY)
To be completely correct, you are talking about 60 GiB vs 75 GiB :p:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Farinorco
Where's sayaa? I think we scared him off. The g2s are better than indilinx in every way, except for sequential write. (sequential write will probably get better than indilinx drives when indilinx drives go under fragmentation and need trimming)
Man i am soo glad i didn't buy earlier this week.
I have been waiting for windows 7 rtm release date and now that it has been officially released I was just about to order some ssd's and i thought to myself i better wait until the last second because of possible price drops and new releases.
Sure enough here comes intel with not only a price drop but a new generation with even better RR's and RW's, i was thinking about holding off because of this whole trim debacle but it's on now baby, dual 80's in a RAID-0here i come.
I will probably place my order at the cheapest location on Aug 1st..
i think sequential write was a low priority for these drives, they probably figured this is for people who know enough about hard drives, to already have a raid of TB drives for the sequential speed, and dont need to worry about trying to replace it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogerlad
I noticed Zipzoomfly has three different G2 models. 2 of which are 2.5" one being 1.8". Any differences among the three other than the form factor?
Linky: http://search.zipzoomfly.com/?Key=80GB+SSD&Category=00
one is for bulk buying.
Aww they removed the 160Gig from the site.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmay119
ZZF does discounts on bulk buying with different serial numbers? Thought they did what newegg does. Buy 2+ get reduced rate, by 5+ get even better, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogerlad
Oh yes, sorry, I should've mentioned they were all 80GB SSD's. All have different Intel Serial Numbers along with different ZZF product codes.Quote:
Originally Posted by deathman20
Sata 3.0?
What else would it be? SATA III isn't even on motherboards yet, doubt we'd see anything til sometime next year or if it is this year it might be rushed out to say they where the first to have it.Quote:
Originally Posted by clayton
Well, you're right about the GiB notation referring to the binary definition of gigabyte (steps of x1024), but the GB notation is also correct ;). In fact, the GiB notation is a convention to differentiate the binary definition from the other one, but note the OS itself use the GB notation even when talking about the binary definition... in the end, GB means gigabyte, be it one definition of the word, or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
Using the GiB notation has its pros and cons: when everyone is using the two different notations, it makes things easier. But when there's people (starting by Microsoft) that uses the original and also valid notation of GB to refer to the binary definition (or even when talking and not writing/reading), the dependence of the GiB notation can lead to even more confussion.
In the end, I prefer to use the GB notation to refer to the word gigabyte be it one or the other. When we speak we always say "gigabyte" anyway...
Hell, what strange topics can arise from a technologies enthusiasts' chat... :D If I have to be sincere, I had forgot the existance of the GiB notation at all... :ROTF:
Just wait for the X25-E G2s with 34nm SLC NAND :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by RagzaroK
So after Buy.com jacked the price from $229 to $290 after they saw sales pick up, who else has these in stock for the proper price?
Seems as though stock has always been pretty low everywhere. I doubt they'll be available in mass quantities until next week (even later perhaps). I'd like to see what the price on the G1's will be pretty soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Telperion
Intel Forces OCZ's Hand: Indilinx Drives To Drop in Price
http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3608Quote:
The SSD world waited with bated breath on Tuesday as Intel announced the specs and pricing of its next-generation X25-M drives. The performance improved, sometimes heartily, but the pricing was the real story. Once these things get out there, Intel is expecting the 80GB drive to sell for $225 and the 160GB drive to sell for $440. If you'll remember back to last September, the X25-M first debuted at $595.
This meant trouble for 3rd party SSD makers like OCZ, whose cheapest high performance drives would now be more expensive than Intel's X25-M. As you'd expect, by forcing prices down, all 3rd party SSD vendors had to react. OCZ shared its new pricing structure with us that should start taking effect in the coming weeks:............
I don't know if they are still making profit after this, but the fact that the price can be dropped so suddenly really irritates me: it smacks of high margins being charged to exploit new technology.
But I guess ... I shouldn't be surprised.
Intel X25-M Gen 2 SSD Performance Review
http://hothardware.com/Articles/Inte...rmance-Review/
Great, thanks. Seems to be a good review. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
seems HDDs are no different than GPUs and CPUs now. once one company has the best product for the price, the rest have to react with priceQuote:
Originally Posted by cegras
keep in mind the OCZ drives will either sell at a loss, or not sell at all, which will be a bigger loss for them. i think OCZ is in the state of "damage control"
im hoping that OCZ jumps on the 34nm bandwagon very soon, this kind of competition is the best thing for us consumers
The new NANDS are cheaper to produce aka lower price..Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
bring on the price wars! :D
I was talking more about OCZ's reaction, and most likely other vendors who sell indilinx / samsung drives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mech0z
I think it's a pity they are holding back on releasing the 320GB drives...the empty flash memory slots on the PCB are just...wrong.
G2's at Newegg tonight........................
Just bought one from newegg thanks!
must.....resist.....
I'm tired, of no one posting some Monkey Fightin' Links, on this Monday-to-Friday thread !!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by foch3 -USA-
EDIT: Found It !! http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820167016
Here's the Model no.: SSDSA2MH080G2C1
160GB now online: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820167017
Perkam
Thanks oldsarge, snapped up an 80GB to replace my SLC Samsung 64GB SSD... the extra space will be nice, and the 'egg had the Intel 80GB G2 for the $230 shipped price :D!
80gb G2 $229.99 shipped: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820167016
160gb G2 $449.99 shipped: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820167017
If the formatted capacity matches the advertised one as was stated earlier, that's gravy.
This is going to make OCZ crap its pants tomorrow morning.
Perkam
newegg.ca to the rescue. Destroying 60gb vertex in price and performance. Never bought from newegg though; are there still custom charges even if free shipping. Hopefully ncix will have em cheaper.
I bet... the price/gb and performance bends their current offerings over backward :(... I had a 2x 60GB RAID 0 setup I was using that I sent off for return (non-defective) for a refund (gogo no restock fee, and no I didn't claim it was broken) that I had paid $440 shipped for. For a scant $10 more I could get the 160GB intel, or do what I'm doing and getting just the space I need (80GB intel, larger size than the 60 ocz) for the same price as one of the OCZ 60gb drives but have much better performance than that would have offered me. The 'Bay price for my original Samsung SLC that I was using before trying the OCZ's is around $350-370, so I'll actually profit off of this switch in every way.
Thanks Intel ;)!
I believe Newegg has Canadian warehouses for newegg.ca, but don't quote me on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogerlad
160GB on the way for my lappy. Takes a bit away from the engagement ring savings, but its worth it. She wont know. :D
There has never been customs from newegg.ca. They charge taxes + $1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogerlad
Might have to sell off my 250 gig vertex and pick up a pair of Intel 80 gigs
ooooh. I see someone's sig. SOMEONE should be crunching :sofa: :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by lowfat
Newegg.ca doesn't take any extra charges beyond what you get after you add it to cart and put in your postal code.
Also, the price will be higher in a month or so because the C$/USD$ rate is more favorable for Canada atm (its high 0.8ish, its usually low 0.8ish). So i'd grab it before the price jumps back up.
Perkam
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1022/1/
Thirteen pages review. And what does it say?:D
"My SSD Rocks!" -the Intel sticker.
before I checked out a 4870, I got 68 dollars for shipping, so I didn't buy it. Shipping can't be that high, so I assumed it was those darn customs. Is free shipping really free?Quote:
Originally Posted by lowfat
I wish reviewers would do some real world testsQuote:
Originally Posted by labs23
Love the sticker!Quote:
Originally Posted by labs23
'handling' is taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogerlad
Same here. Real world test(s) are a bit time consuming and with a lil bit more hassle than synthetic benchmarks. But no doubt we'll see some real world tests pretty soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Firestrider
*Edit: Newegg's 80GB G2 are now out of stock.
thanks for the clarification lowfat!
Someone do a benchmark of a single 80 gig Drive vs 2 30 gig Vertex in RAID.
So I know if I need to switch :)
Oh yeah I want my $1/GB SSD:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Klarko
Come on all vendors of the world counter Intel and stop use SSDs as cashcows:rofl:
yeah, that is a nice feature... thought its kinda funny to call it a feature, its more like this controller does things right while all other controllers are sortof in beta stage :DQuote:
Originally Posted by F0rr3sTT
i hope other controllers will implement this in some way or another soon...
how do you define conroe then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Levish
1.) expensive and costing more than the competition
2.) winning in synthetic tests but roughly the same in real world perf
3.) no notable improvements over its predecessor in most scenarios
sorry but thats not what i remember conroe like...
conroe was offering amazing perf/$ amazing perf that blew amd out of the water and it outperformed anything netburst soooo badly that intel had to slow down conroe manufacturing on purpose so they could get rid of their netburst stock.
i dont see anything like that with theese ssds...
not even close...
out of stock... if they keep the same price when they are back in stock thatll be very sweet! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by HKPolice
in that case, yes, the g2 would be the drive to get, no doubt...
even then i wouldnt compare this to conroe though :P
sorry... your right...Quote:
Originally Posted by Telperion
i still dont see what the big hype over this is, they are slightly faster and cost about the same, before competitiors actually reacted to the prices...
i expected a lot more from intels 2nd gen ssds...
now that ocz and others are reacting to the prices you can get a 128gb drive over an intel g2 80gb drive for ~50$ extra, and if availability stays low and prices high, the intel g2 drive might actually cost the same as other 128gb drives for a while...
what you buy is an ssd, not gbs...Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
the $/mb price is great for vgas with double the memory compared to the ref design, and? that alone doesnt say a single thing about what product is better or costs less... what you buy is an ssd, and the cheapest ssd intel offers is the same price as competing drives... it doesnt matter what their price per gb is in that case...
and when you sort the infos properly youll notice intels price per gb isnt notably lower than that of others the higher the capacity gets. at 128/160 intel is at 2.75 and others are at around 3, thats barely a diference...
and now ocz and others are dropping their prices notably and intel is the most expensive once again...
lol :p: what would i be affraid of? to admit that i was wrong about some things i said? pfff what a loser would avoid admitting to have said something wrong? like anand when he praised intels 1st gen ssds as conroeing the competition and then dissapearing when people had formatting and corruption issues? gazzzzing! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Boogerlad
mhhhh... only synthetic tests, and the only real world related tests, pcmark vantage, actually shows the corsair p256 BEAT the new intel ssd...Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
whats up with all those synthetic tests, this really sucks...
those tests are mostly focussed on server perf afaik
and another pure synthetic test run... great... :/Quote:
Originally Posted by labs23
@ everybody buying those new ssds right after launch...
i think your making a big mistake... they have just been released, ocz has already slashed their prices and by quite a bit, others will follow, and eventually intel will slash their prices as well...