Intel plans 600GB SSDs for end of 2010

[Glow9]

Capacity is fine as it is, improve the controller!!!

Yeah I thought people had to be pretty stupid to dish out $100 for 32gb.
Especially when you can get a 1tb for less than a $100. Thanks for confirming it. Why don't you ask Nvidia to pump their mainstream up to $400 while your at it.

[aka1nas]

Obviously the SSD market has created additional demand for Flash - although if I had to take a guess I would wager that the Flash market for cell phones and iPods is much larger in overall total capacity. The simple fact of the matter is that if anything there is a slight overcapacity issue in the market. See this article just as an example. Flash prices continue to fall at an exponential rate - see here, here (2008), and here (2007). In short.. be patient. They're coming down - but it just seems slow when you're waiting to get a SSD.

The NAND flash that is fast/dense enough to be used in SSDs is in short supply at the moment, which is why SSD prices have increased by 30% or so throughout this year. While there is still a supply glut for the slower flash chips that can be used in thumb drives and memory cards, there are only a few manufacturers that are currently able to produce SSD-grade NAND flash. This should get better over the next year as more vendors get their fabs tooled up.

[ethernal]

The NAND flash that is fast/dense enough to be used in SSDs is in short supply at the moment, which is why SSD prices have increased by 30% or so throughout this year. While there is still a supply glut for the slower flash chips that can be used in thumb drives and memory cards, there are only a few manufacturers that are currently able to produce SSD-grade NAND flash. This should get better over the next year as more vendors get their fabs tooled up.

I'll agree with you that you cannot directly compare the high performance flash market to the crum that is thrown into thumbdrives but I believe your thesis is a bit off. The 30% increase you bring up is comparing the cost of flash memory from around March or April of this year. This was right after/during the height of the financial panic. The price of flash fell off a cliff - it went down about 60% overnight - as companies sought desperately to minimize inventories since the sky was about to fall. When the sky managed to stay afloat prices stabilized and remained constant over the past couple of months as the market readjusted after its binge on cheap chips and inventory depletion. There has been a spike related to the surge in holiday demand - and you are probably correct that there is a short term supply crunch related to holiday buying - but this is much more of a short term price support factor that will disappear post holidays.

I could, of course, be mistaken - this is all back of the envelope of course.

[freeloader]

Screw 600GB, make 80GB sub $100

[naokaji]

But, for end user's, high capacity SSD are unnecessary.

Unnecessary does not mean there is no market for it though, technically speaking I7 is unnecessary as well as some old s775 quadcore is already more than enough, but I7 still sells, point being that people will still buy high capacity ssds if they become avalaible no matter if they really require it or not.
Besides, don't forget the ever growing mobile market, no room for ssd + hdd there (except for some not really portable oversize laptops).

[Bolas]

So where's my 600GB Intel drive? I don't see any for sale yet.. any word on the actual release date?

[LuckyNV]

Really..? What are you filling a 120GB SSD with..?

PCs play games too you know...

My Steam folder is about 115GB, I don't even have that many games, OR do I have them all installed.

Latest Steam holiday sales pushed me right over AvP alone is 15GB (wtf) then X3:Terran Conflict (10GB) and Dragon age (20GB)

Now after playing games off my spindle drive I notice some chug in certain situations which is clearly noticeable, now I think I'm spoiled for want completely seamless consistent performance.

So I'm not asking for 2TB of SSD like some in here are thinking, but a well priced, reasonable performing 300-400GB is more than enough for me.

Since people are asking/debating as to why people (yes people, not just me) want larger SSDs, I would like to know why people are equally content with an SSD with just their OS on it?
Also, why do we need such high sequential performance of 300MB/sec+ or whatever and SSD companies seem to be improving on that? You do know if you write a large file to your SSD and then want to put it on some other storage you're going to be limited to the destination speed...?

I'm certainly not against cheaper "mega fast" 60GB/80GB drives, but there is certainly a large enough market for "mainstream" style SSDs with larger capacities. Heck I would probably get the "mega fast" SSDs and put the OS on it, then the larger capacity SSD for my games.

ps I guess it is partially Steam's fault for not providing a facility to locate games outside of the main Steam/Valve folder, I don't need every game on the SSD, but certainly the ones I do want will still eat up majority of the space.

[tdream]

So where's my 600GB Intel drive? I don't see any for sale yet.. any word on the actual release date?

Good question, I've been waiting and waiting and waiting too. Should of bought the x25m when it first came out and saved myself all the frustration. The 160gb has barely moved in price and 600gb is a pipe dream. Fail Intel.

[Hornet331]

PCs play games too you know...

My Steam folder is about 115GB, I don't even have that many games, OR do I have them all installed.

Latest Steam holiday sales pushed me right over AvP alone is 15GB (wtf) then X3:Terran Conflict (10GB) and Dragon age (20GB)

Now after playing games off my spindle drive I notice some chug in certain situations which is clearly noticeable, now I think I'm spoiled for want completely seamless consistent performance.

So I'm not asking for 2TB of SSD like some in here are thinking, but a well priced, reasonable performing 300-400GB is more than enough for me.

Since people are asking/debating as to why people (yes people, not just me) want larger SSDs, I would like to know why people are equally content with an SSD with just their OS on it?
Also, why do we need such high sequential performance of 300MB/sec+ or whatever and SSD companies seem to be improving on that? You do know if you write a large file to your SSD and then want to put it on some other storage you're going to be limited to the destination speed...?

I'm certainly not against cheaper "mega fast" 60GB/80GB drives, but there is certainly a large enough market for "mainstream" style SSDs with larger capacities. Heck I would probably get the "mega fast" SSDs and put the OS on it, then the larger capacity SSD for my games.

ps I guess it is partially Steam's fault for not providing a facility to locate games outside of the main Steam/Valve folder, I don't need every game on the SSD, but certainly the ones I do want will still eat up majority of the space.

lol fail.. for games get a 600gb raptor, load times are ~10-15% longer then on SSD but way more space and faster then normal 7.2k drives.

[antiacid]

Why use a SSD for storage purposes?..

yes because I store all my movies in uncompressed streams of data on SSD's...

in his scenario, he'S using the SSD as a temp disk to encode the uncompressed stream, which would be slightly faster than on a wd green drive, for example

[Serra]

Kids, this thread is from 2009... not a lot of use in replying to comments now.

/thread

[[XC] gomeler]

Kids, this thread is from 2009... not a lot of use in replying to comments now.

/thread

but but but.. I want to complain!