Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Kingston Joins SSD Fray With Intel Drives

Last response: in News comments
Share
January 21, 2009 2:57:11 AM

so why would i buy from them when i can just buy an intel ssd?
Score
0
January 21, 2009 3:55:32 AM

the company thinks their brand differentiates from intel, if you read the bold first paragraph in the article.
i guess they're right, they might sell ssd drives as much as intel can.

Blessedmanso why would i buy from them when i can just buy an intel ssd?

Score
0
Related resources
January 21, 2009 6:18:17 AM

Its for AMD fanboi's
Score
-3
Anonymous
January 21, 2009 10:12:54 AM

I guess this means that Intel doesn't have enough Flash production capacity to flood the market with those drives - and I they'd love to have more impact on HDD sales. This way they outsource production and support, but still get money from licensing. This should mean higher availability and maybe even lower prices of those drives, though I wouldn't count on the latter in short term.
Score
1
January 22, 2009 7:45:58 AM

ummmmmmmm there building these drives from the ground up, kingston only badges it, its still 100% intel

and nice one guys, my AMD fanboy joke gets me -3? its a joke, you know those things you laugh at? oh right AMD's fanies dont get it, heh.... Idiots.
Score
0
January 22, 2009 7:40:26 PM

Wouldn't a standard HDD with 4 - 250GB platters storing the data at different positions on each of the platters (the 1st quarter of the data store on the 1st quarter of platter 1... 2nd quarter of platter 2... 3rd platter of platter 3.......) and a gigabyte of cache be cheaper and about as fast as a SSD drive? (and with the same write penalty)

Admittedly, power consumption would be about the same and you would want to get a little fancier with the data placement, but...for $200 vs $500 it might be a nice trade off :) 

(yes, I know...and this is why I don't design HDD for a living)
Score
0
January 23, 2009 5:21:04 AM

KaryWouldn't a standard HDD with 4 - 250GB platters storing the data at different positions on each of the platters (the 1st quarter of the data store on the 1st quarter of platter 1... 2nd quarter of platter 2... 3rd platter of platter 3.......) and a gigabyte of cache be cheaper and about as fast as a SSD drive? (and with the same write penalty)Admittedly, power consumption would be about the same and you would want to get a little fancier with the data placement, but...for $200 vs $500 it might be a nice trade off (yes, I know...and this is why I don't design HDD for a living)


Yeah unfortunatly its not like that, these SSD's have seek times below 0.01ms or less vs the average standard hdd with 11ms seek times - loading of apps is monstrously different etc because of seek time performance keeping that transfer speed up there.
Score
0
!