MMM
Results 1 to 25 of 47

Thread: Intel to launch 34nm SSD with 450/300 MB/s R/W in February

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,592
    Quote Originally Posted by Russian View Post
    These appear to suck compared to the SF drives from OCZ>...
    intel drives have delivered so far, maybe not in peak read/write speeds but they also don't require highly compressible data to achieve their ratings

    4k random reads and writes is where they shine, and performance is already at a level where you won't see a difference from drive A to drive B unless you are benching.

  2. #2
    Xtreme X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Levish View Post
    intel drives have delivered so far, maybe not in peak read/write speeds but they also don't require highly compressible data to achieve their ratings

    4k random reads and writes is where they shine, and performance is already at a level where you won't see a difference from drive A to drive B unless you are benching.
    sandforce sort of pisses me off because in the benchmark world they do well, but in the real world, not all data is so compressible.

    people always talk about how great it is, but people never really focus on average/read writes - always just peak, which is not real-world in many scenarios.

    When sandforce first came out, I drank the kool-aide and put two in my HTPC... worst mistake of my life putting in a drive that sucks with data that can't be compressed in a computer that just deals with highly compressed videos/music.
    CPU: Intel CORE 2 Duo E6550 @ 3.6GHz w/ 1.29vcore (517*7)
    Motherboard:
    Gigabyte P35-DQ6
    Memory:
    Crucial 8500's
    Video:
    Nvidia 8800GTX
    PSU:
    Zippy 700W (fan modded of course)

  3. #3
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Where the Cheese Heads Reside
    Posts
    2,173
    Quote Originally Posted by irev210 View Post
    sandforce sort of pisses me off because in the benchmark world they do well, but in the real world, not all data is so compressible.

    people always talk about how great it is, but people never really focus on average/read writes - always just peak, which is not real-world in many scenarios.

    When sandforce first came out, I drank the kool-aide and put two in my HTPC... worst mistake of my life putting in a drive that sucks with data that can't be compressed in a computer that just deals with highly compressed videos/music.
    I hear you man. SSD's are new to the market, then on top of that adding hardware compression I wasn't thrilled with that. Sure it might work OK but I don't need another component of a new tech to break my drive if something goes wrong.

    I love my G2 drives, they work great and will look forward to the G3/G4 drives (hopefully die shrunk) in the future.

    Besides how many times do you see intel drives failing and a lot of others have?
    -=The Gamer=-
    MSI Z68A-GD65 (G3) | i5 2500k @ 4.5Ghz | 1.3875V | 28C Idle / 65C Load (LinX)
    8Gig G.Skill Ripjaw PC3-12800 9-9-9-24 @ 1600Mhz w/ 1.5V | TR Ultra eXtreme 120 w/ 2 Fans
    Sapphire 7950 VaporX 1150/1500 w/ 1.2V/1.5V | 32C Idle / 64C Load | 2x 128Gig Crucial M4 SSD's
    BitFenix Shinobi Window Case | SilverStone DA750 | Dell 2405FPW 24" Screen
    -=The Server=-
    Synology DS1511+ | Dual Core 1.8Ghz CPU | 30C Idle / 38C Load
    3 Gig PC2-6400 | 3x Samsung F4 2TB Raid5 | 2x Samsung F4 2TB
    Heat

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •