Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Intel to Ship Value-Based X25-X SSD in Q4

Last response: in News comments
Share
October 17, 2009 12:42:31 AM

4 bucks a gig. no thanks!
Score
26
October 17, 2009 12:48:13 AM

I saw under 160 bucks and got excited... then saw 40GB's. Doesnt seem any cheaper to me.
Score
32
October 17, 2009 12:53:32 AM

What the guys up there said.
Score
17
October 17, 2009 1:05:46 AM

Write speeds aren't much chop.
Score
12
October 17, 2009 1:05:53 AM

wow 40mb/s read, no thanks
Score
-8
October 17, 2009 1:09:39 AM

With that write speed, I'd still much rather go with a VelociRaptor.
Score
19
October 17, 2009 1:13:42 AM

False_dmitry_iiWith that write speed, I'd still much rather go with a VelociRaptor.

The small random reads will still far exceed the Velociraptor though. For an OS drive this is far more important than big sequential numbers like the ones posted here.
Score
5
October 17, 2009 1:25:58 AM

Besides for throughput, Corsair's CT128M225 and Crucial's P128 are much better overall. Plus, I'm starting to get rather annoyed. What's with this new business model over the last few years? I remember when the latest and best model got the high price tag, then dropped in price as a newer and better model came out. Nowadays, the latest model price stays the same (or in SSD's cases, goes up) when a newer but lower performance model comes out.

Score
8
October 17, 2009 1:28:00 AM

The 80GB X25-M is currently $289 on newegg. how is this a value at $169 for 40GB, plus it's much slower?
Score
20
October 17, 2009 1:32:00 AM

"According to specs revealed to us, the value SSD will provide reading speeds of up to 170 MB/sec. and write speeds of up to 40 MB/sec"
TLC anyone?
Lol, this product sucks.
Score
11
October 17, 2009 1:39:53 AM

randomizerThe small random reads will still far exceed the Velociraptor though. For an OS drive this is far more important than big sequential numbers like the ones posted here.

benchmarkturbaters like big numbers... not actual performance and usefullness
Score
1
October 17, 2009 1:44:37 AM

snotlingbenchmarkturbaters like big numbers... not actual performance and usefullness

But in this case the big numbers are actually small numbers. Had they posted up a comparison of a HDD and this SSD in 4kB random reads it would have dominated. My OCZ Vertex (not directly comparable of course) is 25x faster than my WD Caviar Black. Wouldn't "25x faster than a spinning platter hard drive!!!!!!" look better than this?
Score
1
October 17, 2009 2:28:48 AM

LMAO, EPIC fail this time Intel. If it were 80G, maybe, but forty, LOL.
Score
9
October 17, 2009 2:35:38 AM

Intel SSD's = FAIL unless you are rich and like throwing money away.....

Im fine with dual 640's in raid 0, Intel can keep their overpriced drives....
Score
7
October 17, 2009 3:17:15 AM

Well, while 40 GB isn't much, it's large enough for a boot drive. The write speeds might suck, but other than install and updates, you're not going to be writing to the drive too much if it's only a boot drive. But I do have to agree that $160 is a bit too much for this. I think it's because they don't want people buying two of these for RAID 0 instead of an 80 GB M series. If this drive was either 60 GB, or more towards $120, I'd find it much more appealing.
Score
1
October 17, 2009 3:27:08 AM

Wow I have mixed feelings about this drive. It was just the other day that I wondering why Intel didn't have a 40 gig ssd out because for the right price it would dominate the market (assuming it has similar performance of course). At $160, this drive is a little enticing but as other commenters have pointed out, it doesn't improve GB/$. The thing that will make or break this drive is real world performance. 170 MB/s read and 40 MB/s write means next to nothing to those of us who are actually in the market for a ssd. If this "budget" drive actually has similar performance to its big brother, this will be a really attractive option. If, however, its performance falls short of an OCZ Vertex 32 GB's performance, specifically in random reads and writes, then it'll flop. I sincerely hope for the sake of everybody in the market for a ssd on a budget, including myself, that this drive performs competitively.
Score
-1
October 17, 2009 4:09:17 AM

I'll wait until I can get a 120GB drive with X25-M speeds for ~$1/gig. Until them my 640GB 32MB Caviar Black is good enough. This thing is too over priced for the performance.
Score
4
October 17, 2009 4:41:35 AM

So, it's half the size, almost half the write speeds, for not even close to half of Intel's MSRP on the X25-M-G2 80GB. On the good side, read speeds are still high so applications should be much more responsive that they would be on a standard HDD.
Score
2
October 17, 2009 4:55:56 AM

Kind of a drag, really...
Score
3
October 17, 2009 5:00:40 AM

m3dI'll wait until I can get a 120GB drive with X25-M speeds for ~$1/gig. Until them my 640GB 32MB Caviar Black is good enough. This thing is too over priced for the performance.


These SSDs look like garbage, but a good SSD is more of a performance boost than a new CPU/RAM/Motherboard.
Score
-1
October 17, 2009 6:16:29 AM

Hmmm this would be cool for ready boost, didn't they unlimit it for 7? One drive for ready boost another nice fast hard drive for swap and a third slower drive for the OS. Last but not least would be one for media and back ups :)  Starting to sound like my machine I am posting from... (well except the ready boost drive)
Score
-4
October 17, 2009 6:36:11 AM

JonathanDeaneHmmm this would be cool for ready boost, didn't they unlimit it for 7? One drive for ready boost another nice fast hard drive for swap and a third slower drive for the OS. Last but not least would be one for media and back ups Starting to sound like my machine I am posting from... (well except the ready boost drive)

40GB of ready-boost? Are you...?
Score
0
October 17, 2009 7:33:07 AM

ubernoobiewow 40mb/s read, no thanks


Your name says it all.
Score
0
October 17, 2009 8:27:33 AM

Hell, I just bought 8x500GB 7200.10 drives with a raid card on a C2D system... less than the ost of three of there...
Score
1
October 17, 2009 9:20:46 AM

Let's see ... more expensive (per GB) and lower performance. No thanks.

In defense of the other Intel drives, 7200 RPM drives in a RAID setup don't even begin to compare to the performance of the X25-M. You have to see the performance to believe it.

Example: I can launch Firefox, Microsoft Visual Studio 2008, Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio and other apps in sequence and each app is up and running in less time than it takes to select the next app.
Score
2
Anonymous
October 17, 2009 3:02:42 PM

I will try to say something that others have not said and not include my opinion.

Some say you can use this for a boot drive, I just want to add that "boot drive" will also contain all of your programs, not just the OS. This may work for some people and not for others. In an office, a 40GB drive is fine when data is stored on a network. For someone that just surfs the web at home - this works well too. For software developers, this size may be too small to hold all development tools. Anyone that installs a lot of big programs may feel 40GB is too cramped. I would say the target audience is limited, but is not for "power users". Also, the price of $160 may seem high but if you do not need more than 40GB then $160 for a performance boost may not be that bad.
Score
1
October 17, 2009 5:44:49 PM

3wx4ec5rv6tb7yhttp://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6820141420

woah! Don't buy that! It has the single JMicron controller that is prone to stutter (aka incredibly bad random write speeds.)
Score
1
October 17, 2009 7:41:42 PM

Quote:
the value SSD will provide reading speeds of up to 170 MB/sec. and write speeds of up to 40 MB/sec. The drive is poised to be priced under $160.

will arrive as a 2.5-inch MLC drive with an earnest 40 GB capacity.

WTF is this shit Intel. That ain't cheaper. The 80GB X25-M is like $240 and owns this thing on speed.
Score
1
October 17, 2009 8:14:15 PM

doomtombWTF is this shit Intel. That ain't cheaper. The 80GB X25-M is like $240 and owns this thing on speed.

It is "cheaper," in that you can buy one of these drives for less money than the other. It's not really looking like a better value, though.

master exon40GB of ready-boost? Are you...?

"Imagine a beowulf cluster of these things!"
Score
0
October 18, 2009 1:01:57 AM

to slow for write speed. Id rather get a 10,000rpm drive for $200-250 still for the master drive. I was waiting for this to be at least 80gb or for the real successor to SSD 1.0. Im waiting until next year for true SSD2.0's or for these older ones price to drop $100 that will be cheaper and with at least 250mb/sec read and 70/sec write.
Score
0
October 18, 2009 1:06:25 AM

KIDs go to sleep. Your standart PC for games and stuff is not the market for SSD's yet.
For serious buyiers as buisness servers, SSD would be nice choice, but this Intel X series really sucks. Although speeds are OK, but having in mind, that decent Intel 25-M offers the best price/performance for web/database server application. compare the speeds of new X series and M, and you'll find that this new series is good, but nothing new.
Score
-1
October 18, 2009 1:26:08 AM

Headline in the near future....

Value-Based SSD - Even Cheaper than the X25-X!

Then you read the article and find out you would be paying $20 for a 1gb SSD.


Seriously, I read the article title and thought that it would be a step in the right direction for SSD prices, but it turns out they just lower the space as well as the price.
Score
1
October 18, 2009 2:40:54 AM

Pfftt.... I bought two NIB x-25ms gen 1 for 185 a piece on ebay. This latest offering is an insult.

Sure the random access times make it a great boot drive, but geez man, intel what gives?
Score
1
October 18, 2009 8:14:02 AM

I could actually put a 40GB SSD to good use, but the performance drop is a freaking lot... Think I'll keep waiting on cheaper 80GB drives.
Score
2
October 18, 2009 3:06:06 PM

We are all just gonna have to wait a bit longer. I'm assuming the costs for SSD's are still high are because A)Still somewhat "new" technology and B)It may still be more expensive to manufacture than standard HDD's.

Give it another year or two and hopefully SSD's pricing will drop to more economical rates, especially considering the times at this moment.

Plus does it really matter? I mean, if I'm not mistaken, current OS's (except for server specific OS's) aren't really made for these things. Doing some research it seems like a lot of settings need to be adjusted when using these babies for home use (disabling paging file, super fetch, defrag, etc).

So maybe when the next OS's from MS and Apple come out, hopefully they will have these new drives in mind...
Score
-1
Anonymous
October 18, 2009 4:36:32 PM

thanks to certain e-tailer that has been selling the x-25 g2 80gb and 160gb like hot cakes at $299 and $609 and shows intel that people's willingness to pay is at $4/gb.
Score
1
October 18, 2009 5:15:51 PM

ubernoobiewow 40mb/s read, no thanks

where the hell did you get 40mb/s read out of that?

but nonetheless, id rather get a nice velociraptor hdd
Score
1
October 18, 2009 6:09:08 PM

Honestly, "Value" is not where this drive is based. Consider twice the capacity, better performance, for 50% more. The 80GB is value based!
Score
2
October 18, 2009 6:58:35 PM

The price was exiting until the capacity was mentioned...Looks like I (and many others) will have to continue to play the waiting game.
Score
3
October 18, 2009 7:22:56 PM

yeah its super cheap... because its super tiny. Ill pass
Score
3
October 18, 2009 9:47:20 PM

When will people realize that you don't buy a SSD for the amount of space it has on it? You buy it to put the OS on, and them maybe a few other apps that are HDD intensive. You don't need 80 gigs for an OS drive. 40 is fine. I'm so sick of seeing the comparison of SSD's to HDDs.
Score
-3
October 19, 2009 6:23:14 AM

I concur with a lot of the opinions already posted. For my use, 40GB is just too small. I like my Velociraptor because it gives a bit of a performance increase (at least over your standard 7200rpm drive) and it comes with 300GB of space. 40GB just isn't doing it right now, especially for the price. By this time next year, hopefully there will be some new SSD's on the market that are cheaper, bigger, and offer somewhat comparable performance to top end SSD's.
Score
1
October 19, 2009 10:29:58 AM

could be a good drive for netbooks if the price was better...
Score
1
October 19, 2009 1:57:40 PM

intel you suck huge ass.
Score
0
Anonymous
October 19, 2009 3:49:49 PM

Intel fail (they don't fail often but this is a pretty sad one)
Score
1
Anonymous
October 19, 2009 11:56:18 PM

I think true read and write speeds are depending on the IOPS we can get out of those devices!
At 40MB/s but with decent IOPS, I'm sure it'll do just fine as a laptop replacement HD.
Hopefully they are Sata/Sata2 compatible!
I did hope that for 160, I'd get a 64Gb SSD, with write speeds around 50 or 60MB/s!
Readspeeds of 170MB/s are better than I had expected though!
Many netbooks and laptops have got a limit of about 60MB/s data transfer from and to the HD anyways.
Score
0
October 20, 2009 12:15:58 AM

This is a value?
Score
0
Anonymous
October 22, 2009 6:57:52 AM

hopefully "under $160" really means ~$100
Score
0
!