Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Intel Releasing SATA 6.0 Gbps SSDs Next Month?

Tags:
  • SSD
  • Intel
  • SATA
Last response: in News comments
Share
January 27, 2011 11:24:13 PM

not interested. if i get a 512GB SSD for $70 ~ $90 then ill get it. I can wait the few extra seconds to load OS. Same goes for Game loading but in multiplayer thats useless because map rotation are on a timer making sure everybody spawns the same time. 95MB/s - 85MB/s is enough for me.
Score
-6
January 27, 2011 11:32:11 PM

I don't get it. the 510 drives has really good linear read & write transfer speeds(450/300), but crap read & write I/O (20K/4K)?
The G3 has good(SATA II-like) linear read @ write speeds(250/170MB), but good read I/O & crap write I/O (50K/4K).

Score
-2
Related resources
January 27, 2011 11:35:22 PM

Sadly the price/performance still isn't great enough to warrant me coughing up my hard earned cash to add one.
Score
3
January 27, 2011 11:54:37 PM

danwat1234I don't get it. the 510 drives has really good linear read & write transfer speeds(450/300), but crap read & write I/O (20K/4K)?The G3 has good(SATA II-like) linear read @ write speeds(250/170MB), but good read I/O & crap write I/O (50K/4K).

It's all the controller and the interface.

But I think this is wrong, the G3 was supposed to have 50k(4KB)read and 40k(4KB)write. I wish they would switch the G3 to sata III, that would set this thing apart from any other SSD in any situation assuming this would be just as fast as the 510 series sequentially.
Score
-1
January 28, 2011 12:07:33 AM

I dont see the point in buying an Intel SSD when an OCZ Vertex III SSD has speeds much higher and generally costs a bit less gig/$.
Score
0
January 28, 2011 12:08:33 AM

A lot of the folks that say that SSDs aren't worth it until they become as cheap as HDDs are probably the same schmucks that said that they wouldn't be getting a high-speed internet connection until it was $20 a month.

If you haven't experienced a SSD, you might want to go use one.

And no, SSDs won't make your system benchmark any faster, but if all you use your computer for is watching frame rates, benchmarking and overclocking, then don't get an SSD.

But for those of us who use our computers to "do things" and get "work" done, SSDs are a great way to save time, and enjoy our computer that much more.

And I don't know that you're going to be seeing adequate SSDs anywhere near the $100 mark, I don't know... ever. They are going to continue to need to expand (thanks, Microsoft and Adobe) and the parts of them aren't particularly cheap. The truth of computing seems to always be that the prices stay pretty much the same, the numbers just keep getting bigger. Some noob named Moore said something about that.
Score
1
January 28, 2011 12:18:57 AM

Look out Crucial!
Score
0
January 28, 2011 12:22:16 AM

+1 to henry, I'd just like to say that maybe just maybe Intel might want to at least integrate Sata 3 into their motherboards so people can experience it without taking away the already low level of PCI-e lanes. I mean they've been designing Sata 3 SSDs for how long now how hard could it be to implement some of that research into mobos? -end rant
Score
0
January 28, 2011 1:10:43 AM

Right on, henry. If you people who can't afford SSDs are so uninterested, why are you even wasting your time posting here? Why should anyone care when you will buy one?
Score
-4
January 28, 2011 1:20:08 AM

henryvalzA lot of the folks that say that SSDs aren't worth it until they become as cheap as HDDs are probably the same schmucks that said that they wouldn't be getting a high-speed internet connection until it was $20 a month.

I don't get it either, I mean I just shelled out over 2 grand for my system build....what is a couple hundred more to eliminate it's primary bottleneck? Sure it won't make a difference in games, but I guess I'm crazy for using my PC for things other than just video games!

Anybody that can't respect the value SSD's bring aren't true PC enthusiasts. Or they just like watching that cute Windows 7 start up logo while their slow PC loads :p 
Score
-1
January 28, 2011 1:28:36 AM

If SSD are the future, then prices will drop. Its bound for that. If a 500GB HDD came cheap within a few years. I know SSD will become cheap. Taking for example that intel 120GB cost $279 thats $2.33 per GB for SATA 3, which is reasonable compare to others at the same around 128GB capacity.

Reports say SDD is falling at $.50 per GB from $2.33 per GB price point starting 2011 and slowing down to about $.15 per GB. So, I guess in about three to four years we can see decent affordability for mainstream users. So by 2015 a 500GB SSD will probably cost around $165.
Score
2
January 28, 2011 1:31:01 AM

just a 1$/gb that's all i'm asking for.
Score
1
January 28, 2011 2:02:44 AM

This is getting confusing...
Score
0
Anonymous
January 28, 2011 2:16:00 AM

so wait, it doesn't sound like the new drives will take advantage of SATA's 6gbps bandwidth, let alone "old" SATA's 3gbps bandwidth. What am I missing here?
Score
0
January 28, 2011 2:20:04 AM

My HDD does 95MB/s, my vista takes about right about 950MB of data unto the RAM on bootup. My Harddrive transfer that data to RAM at 95MB/s so theoretically I wait 10 seconds after post BIOS boot (which is true). The rest the RAM speed (feeding to CPU) takes care for me on desktop boot up and my sub programs are small take up on RAM. (I also have stricter RAM timings at a higher speed with 11.5ns latency to CPU)

HDD is good enough for 2 more years until my main program load on RAM are build larger than 2GB mark. Incase of anything ill just RAID my Harddrive if my programs loads grows lager than 3GB of RAM.
Score
2
January 28, 2011 4:24:05 AM

Ares1214I dont see the point in buying an Intel SSD when an OCZ Vertex III SSD has speeds much higher and generally costs a bit less gig/$.


because intel is not about blinding speed. people get the intel because it is reliable and has a longer lifespan.
Score
0
January 28, 2011 6:31:23 AM

I don't get it. The capacity is about the last thing you need from a SSD. 80-120GB is just enough for most people. How many games/programs do you have installed simultaneously?
You won't know the difference until you try it! I got a 80GB G2 Intel for my laptop and I simply HAD TO buy another SSD (64GB Vertex 2) for my desktop as well, I just couldn't stand the sluggish HDD anymore. :) 
Score
-1
January 28, 2011 7:18:26 AM

kcorp2003not interested. if i get a 512GB SSD for $70 ~ $90 then ill get it. I can wait the few extra seconds to load OS. Same goes for Game loading but in multiplayer thats useless because map rotation are on a timer making sure everybody spawns the same time. 95MB/s - 85MB/s is enough for me.


With game loading the access times are at least as important as the throughput and thats where the SSD's really destroys the HDD's, few games that read linear data other than the occasional movies. Easy to see the difference with SSD especially when more and more games read the data as you move around in the all bigger game worlds.
Score
-1
January 28, 2011 7:57:32 AM

Not there yet.
Score
0
January 28, 2011 12:10:16 PM

RicheemxxSadly the price/performance still isn't great enough to warrant me coughing up my hard earned cash to add one.


Seriously, over $2/GB, pardon my english, but straight up screw that...though my old klankity 74GB Raptor is getting quite annoying...
Score
2
January 28, 2011 1:02:38 PM

What do I care if they make a 24 Gbps SSD? It's still way too expensive. As already stated, less speed would still be fine if we could get reasonable prices.
The best thing about SSDs is latency. Having, imho, 150mb/s read and 80mb/s write would be just enough, if they were able to get a decent latency and a much better price.
Score
1
January 28, 2011 1:26:25 PM

Intel aren't stupid, they might well be planning to go to Light Peak interface with their next line of chipsets (as someone @thg already said a while ago), so that they have an interface which is suitable to ever-increasing SSD speeds. I'm not sure SATA 3.0 has a lot of life left in it if SSDs get quicker at the current rate.

Score
0
January 28, 2011 2:35:14 PM

The price is still too high.
Score
2
January 28, 2011 4:55:20 PM

Time to buy a Crucial SSD then, I guess.
Score
1
January 28, 2011 6:06:16 PM

+1 for henry
This is the same argument people make about their slow crap car. Its fast enough to get me to work...we can only go 60mph...who needs that much power?

Day to day use these drive make a difference. Everything is snappy. There is no delay due to disk fragmentation....Even the crappiest SSD is 10x better than the fastest drives you can buy.

I cant buy a Ferrari but I sure as heck drool over the (wasted) power it has.

Personally I cant imagine a PC without an SSD and I am going to buy 2 of these babies when they come out (sorry OCZ)..
Score
-1
January 28, 2011 8:39:15 PM

I recently bought a 60gig SSD to replace my caviar black. To be honest the performace increase is barely noticable.

This is what i got: 10th on this benchmark list
Mushkin MKNSSDCL60GB-DX (Sandforce SF-1200)
http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/high_end_drives.html

I wouldn't recommend an SSD to anyone yet untill the prices fall. This was $130 wasted in my opinion.
Score
-1
January 28, 2011 8:53:49 PM

vvhocare5+1 for henryThis is the same argument people make about their slow crap car. Its fast enough to get me to work...we can only go 60mph...who needs that much power?Day to day use these drive make a difference. Everything is snappy. There is no delay due to disk fragmentation....Even the crappiest SSD is 10x better than the fastest drives you can buy.I cant buy a Ferrari but I sure as heck drool over the (wasted) power it has.Personally I cant imagine a PC without an SSD and I am going to buy 2 of these babies when they come out (sorry OCZ)..

I think 10 times better is a HUGE exaggeration.

My PC is a quad core 2.83, 4 gigs ram, GTX 570...(average) I used to have a caviar black HDD and swapped it for an SSD recently. At startup i gained a few seconds(literally a few only, 10 seconds tops). While opening a program we are talking about milliseconds faster, not seconds. SSD's are not near as awesome as you guys "think" they are. For me the $130 upgrade isn't justified, i wish i had waited.

Did you buy a new system and also get an SSD at that time? Yah, you’ll see incredible improvements. Try upgrading your day to day PC from a fast'ish HDD to an SSD and get back to me on your amazing, awesome deal and how incredibly fast you are now. My machine was quick before, and it still is.
Score
0
January 29, 2011 6:05:41 PM

@grieve; Try stuffing a .zip file with Gigabytes of small files while running a defrag of that drive while running an antivirus scan. Then run what you normally run.. You will notice that your Caviar Black will cause the system to crawl whereas with an SSD, it would probably still be responsive.

SSDs pwn with multitasking. But yeah if the person is a light computer user then the cost of an SSD might not be worth it. It all depends on what the bottleneck is for the person using the computer..
Score
-1
January 29, 2011 7:04:43 PM

eklipz330just a 1$/gb that's all i'm asking for.


It is getting closer, good SSDs have now price down to 1.5$ in some cases (Vertex 2). Although, to get to 1$ for reasonably performing SSD might take another 2 years.
Score
0
January 29, 2011 7:08:21 PM

ZehWhat do I care if they make a 24 Gbps SSD? It's still way too expensive. As already stated, less speed would still be fine if we could get reasonable prices. The best thing about SSDs is latency. Having, imho, 150mb/s read and 80mb/s write would be just enough, if they were able to get a decent latency and a much better price.


Well, you will get spoiled. I have drive with 200/100 read/write and I am already regretting I did not buy Vertex 2. I would say anything with reasonable IOPS and 250/250 read/write should be great for having good feeling by beating any HDD in any single performance characteristics. 200/200 being reasonable for the moment.
Score
-1
January 29, 2011 7:11:42 PM

kcorp2003Taking for example that intel 120GB cost $279 thats $2.33 per GB for SATA 3, which is reasonable compare to others at the same around 128GB capacity.

No, it is not. You can get good drive for between 1.5$ to 1.75$ per gigabyte nowadays (120GB+ drives).
Score
-1
January 29, 2011 11:42:00 PM

Hey Kevin, you could have asked me :)  I had this coversation with Intel at CES :) 
Score
0
January 31, 2011 8:35:35 PM

I passed on getting an SSD with my new build and instead put 2 x 1 TB Caviar Blacks in Raid 0. Loading Windows isn't any faster, but loading startup programs, Firefox, and games is ferociously fast vs. non-Raid. I just can't justify an SSD when I'd pay $300 for 256 gb vs. $120 for 2 TB of raid 0.
Score
0
Anonymous
February 1, 2011 9:38:38 PM

So my question is. Do I hold off my plan of buying a Intel X25-M 160GB for 2-3 weeks and get one of these instead?

I ruled out the Crucial C300 because of it's power consumption and the OCZ Vertex 2 because it looked like it had random performance issues. The Intel seemed to be the only consistent SSD at the cost of being in the middle of the road for performance and power consumption.

Or am I way off?
Score
0
February 2, 2011 9:48:28 AM

What is amazing is that the Intel SSD's are considered the 'benchmark' model and that there are cheaper (usually worse) and more expensive (usually better) Solid State Drives on the market.

---> Making storage a semiconductor was a fantastic idea!
Score
0
February 3, 2011 8:21:35 PM

aaron88_7I don't get it either, I mean I just shelled out over 2 grand for my system build....what is a couple hundred more to eliminate it's primary bottleneck? Sure it won't make a difference in games, but I guess I'm crazy for using my PC for things other than just video games!Anybody that can't respect the value SSD's bring aren't true PC enthusiasts. Or they just like watching that cute Windows 7 start up logo while their slow PC loads


I agree totally. Games don't utilize it so install them on data drive, simple. SSD's are the best thing since sliced bread imo.
Score
0
February 3, 2011 9:04:43 PM

At least their writes spees are in line with reads.

I have 2 x Intel X25-V 40GB in RAID0. Reads max @ 400+, writes @ 100+.

But the OCZ Vertex 2 and Agility 2 almost max out the SATA 2 bandwidth, alone. I can't wait to see what RAID0 a couple of these together do.

Still, what are OCZ Vertex 3 specs?
Score
0
February 15, 2011 10:33:16 AM

That's my drive! Right at the top!! :)  (hd benchmark link)

I got a Crucial C300 256Gb on a whim in August. Cost me over £450.
You know what? It's transformed my computer!
I now am waiting for a 512Gb SSD so I can have one in my Vaio laptop!
If you have never used one, then you REALLY don't know what you're using!

For those of you who know about SQL (to a point), I did a test script which imports 7,500,000 records from a CSV in to SQL Server 2008 R2.
On my Laptop (750Gb WD Scorpio Blue) it inserted rows at approx 40,000 per second.
On a dedicated server I have, it did 55,000 rows per second.
However, on my desktop PC...(Phenom II X4 955@3.8GHz, 8Gb DDRIII RAM, 256Gb C300 SSD) it did over 260,000 rows per second!!!!

Do you lot understand how much bloomin' time that saves me every freakin' day!?!?!?!

Oh, and Office starts up instantly etc :) 
Score
0
February 20, 2011 8:44:36 PM

My question is where is the G3 that was rumored to come out this month? I don't want speed I want 160GB SSD for $200.
Score
0
!