Intel X25-M G2: Previews & Reviews

[Telperion]

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...

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.

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.

[cegras]

sorted by price:
$225 Intel X25-M 80GB
$223 Patriot Torqx 64GB
$218 OCZ Vertex 64GB
$177 OCZ Agility 64GB

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

Anand's cost/GB chart is right. You are the one misrepresenting here ...

[Heinz68]

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.

[Zero]

long message :P

i agree with the 80gb drive, for a desktop OS drive, i wouldnt thing about intel drive, 60 gb agility is super ok XD

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

[Manicdan]

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)

[Helmore]

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).

So when comparing, we should talk about 64GB vs 80GB, or 60GB vs 75GB. Got it.

To be completely correct, you are talking about 60 GiB vs 75 GiB .

[Boogerlad]

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)

[bigjohns97]

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..

[Manicdan]

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)

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.

[cmay119]

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

[Boogerlad]

one is for bulk buying.

[deathman20]

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

Aww they removed the 160Gig from the site.

one is for bulk buying.

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.

[cmay119]

Aww they removed the 160Gig from the site.



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.

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.

[clayton]

Sata 3.0?

[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.

[Farinorco]

To be completely correct, you are talking about 60 GiB vs 75 GiB .

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.

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... If I have to be sincere, I had forgot the existance of the GiB notation at all...

[003]

Sweet, faster than the SLC's even. I love it.

Just wait for the X25-E G2s with 34nm SLC NAND

[Telperion]

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?

[cmay119]

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.

[onethreehill]

Intel Forces OCZ's Hand: Indilinx Drives To Drop in Price

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:............

http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3608

[cegras]

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.

[onethreehill]

Intel X25-M Gen 2 SSD Performance Review
http://hothardware.com/Articles/Inte...rmance-Review/

[zalbard]

Intel X25-M Gen 2 SSD Performance Review
http://hothardware.com/Articles/Inte...rmance-Review/

Great, thanks. Seems to be a good review.

[Manicdan]

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.

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 price

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

[Mech0z]

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.

The new NANDS are cheaper to produce aka lower price..