Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Corsair Enters SSD Market With 128 GB SSD

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 17 comments
Tags :

Corsair enters the SSD market as its new Corsair S128 SSD silently hits store shelves.

Although an official announcement has yet to be made, it would appear Corsair has entered into the SSD market.  Appearing recently at e-retailers, Corsair's new S128 SSD features 128 GB of storage capacity and modest sequential read and write speeds of 90 MB/s and 70 MB/s, respectively.  It has yet to be seen if Corsair will offer SSDs in other capacities.

According to Hexus, this Corsair S128 SSD is equipped with a Samsung controller and Samsung NAND flash memory.  Later this year, Corsair is expected to release its second generation of SSDs, which will increase performance to more competitive levels.  These faster SSDs are expected to be based on existing high-performance SSDs, quite possible from Intel, with read and write speeds surpassing 200 MB/s.  It is also believed that Corsair will eventually release SSDs capable of speeds hitting 400 MB/s, but little is known about a potential release date for those.

The 128 GB Corsair S128 SSD has been spotted for order at NCIX for $335.74.  With the cost of SSDs quickly becoming affordable for mainstream users, it may not be long before other companies, such as Western Digital, also feel now is the right time to get on the SSD bandwagon.

Detailed specifications of the Corsair S128:

  • Form Factor 2.5'
  • Unformatted Capacity 128GB
  • User Addressable Sectors 250,069,680
  • Bytes per Sector 512
  • Interface SATA II
  • Sequential Read/Write 90 MB/s read / 70 MB/s write
  • Voltage 5V ±5%
  • Power Consumption Read 0.48W
  • Power Consumption Write 0.46W
  • S.M.A.R.T Support Yes
  • MTBF 1,000,000 Hours
  • Operating Temperature 0°C to 70°C
  • Shock 1500G
  • Width 69.85 mm
  • Height 9.5mm
  • Weight 72g
Display 17 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , January 21, 2009 1:18 PM
    Say what you may, but I still think $335 for a 'slow' SSD is still a lot of money!

    A nice price would be sub $1 per GB flash drives (SSD)
  • -1 Hide
    bone squat , January 21, 2009 4:47 PM
    I agree with pro digit. A more appropriate price would be around $200 for only 128gb..I mean it is ONLY 128gb. That might hold a couple of new games and some mp3s. But it sure isn't going to be well suited for downloading stuff.
  • 0 Hide
    Tindytim , January 21, 2009 5:15 PM
    I rather disappointed. I could understand the slow speeds if this was some sort of cheaper budget model, but it's not, so it's rather pointless to even try.

    Bone SquatI agree with pro digit. A more appropriate price would be around $200 for only 128gb..I mean it is ONLY 128gb. That might hold a couple of new games and some mp3s. But it sure isn't going to be well suited for downloading stuff.

    Are you kidding? Even if all the games you played installed the capacity of Dual-Layer DVDs, that would be 16 games. The average installs I see nowadays are usually a couple of gigs, not 8.

    Not to mention you could fit well over 15,000 mp3s. Your math skills must suck.
  • 0 Hide
    baov , January 21, 2009 5:16 PM
    It might seem "slow" but this looks to be the samsung SLC drive. Expect no stutter and great battery life.
  • 1 Hide
    B-Unit , January 21, 2009 5:37 PM
    Bone SquatI agree with pro digit. A more appropriate price would be around $200 for only 128gb..I mean it is ONLY 128gb. That might hold a couple of new games and some mp3s. But it sure isn't going to be well suited for downloading stuff.


    You, sir, are an idiot. SSDs are not yet for general storage, they are for high performance disk access, basicly your OS and programs. Anyone whos 'downloading' is going to use traditional hard drives.
  • 1 Hide
    ricin , January 21, 2009 11:26 PM
    "read and write speeds of 90 MB/s and 70 MB/s,"

    That's what you do. Buy somebody's leftover first-gen stock, stick a good brand on it, and sell it for three times what its worth.
  • 0 Hide
    neiroatopelcc , January 22, 2009 7:53 AM
    TIndytimI rather disappointed. I could understand the slow speeds if this was some sort of cheaper budget model, but it's not, so it's rather pointless to even try.
    Are you kidding? Even if all the games you played installed the capacity of Dual-Layer DVDs, that would be 16 games. The average installs I see nowadays are usually a couple of gigs, not 8.Not to mention you could fit well over 15,000 mp3s. Your math skills must suck.

    In fact many new games DO take up 6-8gb each. At least the majority of those games I've seen over the last 6 months are in the range of 4-9gb.

    B-UnitYou, sir, are an idiot. SSDs are not yet for general storage, they are for high performance disk access, basicly your OS and programs. Anyone whos 'downloading' is going to use traditional hard drives.

    If indeed this ssd is sold for high performance disk access, wouldn't one be stupid to buy it? I mean - it's SLOWER (sequential read) than a cheap 1tb drive, which will provide a lot more space at a lower cost.
    The only real smart use of this device imo would be in langaming systems, where weight and durability (physical) is as important as performance. So I think you're more of an idiot than the guy that thinks this is overpriced really.
  • 0 Hide
    apache_lives , January 22, 2009 8:05 AM
    were all forgetting that these drives have incredible seek times which perform well with loading apps, windows startup etc - no normal hdd can keep up with a 0.1ms (or less) seek time between files etc
  • -1 Hide
    neiroatopelcc , January 22, 2009 8:52 AM
    apache_liveswere all forgetting that these drives have incredible seek times which perform well with loading apps, windows startup etc - no normal hdd can keep up with a 0.1ms (or less) seek time between files etc

    Which has become quite neglible an advantage, if you've got vista and a readyboost usb stick.
    But sure, at random seeks it'll beat a normal drive. Question is, if it's worth 3usd per gb to have, if the alternative is 0.75usd per gb on a drive with inferior seek time, but superior average read time - which is what you need once windows has booted. Since vista automaticly defrags the users harddrive unless they stop it, a lot of reading is sequential these days. And most games ported from crashbox or gaystation load files alphabetically, futher increasing the benefit of sequential fast reading as opposed to better random seeks.
  • 0 Hide
    apache_lives , January 25, 2009 7:57 AM
    Its like Celeron vs Pentium etc - both work, the Pentium being a more expensive and faster solution that the celeron, and is the better choice if you can afford it.

    Heh readyboost caps my network transfer speeds and a few other things down to the pathetic speed of a "high end" pen drive - apps do load faster, but cant be compared to more ram or a faster hdd, in my case Raid 0, 8gb and i used to have ready boots till the network limits etc.

    As for "neglible advantage" - check out what people say on NewEgg - "I have never witnessed a single component change affect performance so much as one of these." http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167005

    In a few months ill prolly pick up 2 for my rig (raid0) - cant wait.
  • 0 Hide
    neiroatopelcc , January 27, 2009 6:23 AM
    Guess I'm just used to fast drives, and don't see the point of them then. Imo it's still a neglible advantage however.
  • 0 Hide
    apache_lives , January 28, 2009 7:01 AM
    well in a way its useless - games dont perform better (average FPS ~2% at best), etc - more that fresh performance i so love :D 
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , February 2, 2009 3:56 PM
    There are a number of uses where random access time is king. In these cases, traditional HDs choke on access time and can only throughput 10-20MB/s. If this can actually achieve 90MB/70MB while doing random reads/writes it would kill for these uses.

    Anyone suggesting you would store MP3's or downloads on an SSD is clueless.
  • 0 Hide
    apache_lives , February 3, 2009 6:36 AM
    neiroatopelccGuess I'm just used to fast drives, and don't see the point of them then. Imo it's still a neglible advantage however.


    When your playing FPS games online and every time a level loads and that little bastard kills you before you can even get into position, hes most likely running a rig with 4xVR's or SSD's etc - we all know those kind of people who pay anything for the advantage :D 
  • 0 Hide
    neiroatopelcc , February 4, 2009 6:03 AM
    apache_livesWhen your playing FPS games online and every time a level loads and that little bastard kills you before you can even get into position, hes most likely running a rig with 4xVR's or SSD's etc - we all know those kind of people who pay anything for the advantage


    I'm not into mindles fps games u know. I do enjoy my crysis and farcry 2 shooters, but in single player only. I'm just too old to beat some 15 year old kids reflexes.

    So I'm playing strategy games and stuff like world of warcraft. And I dare say neither of those need more speed than my raid 5 provides.
  • 0 Hide
    apache_lives , February 5, 2009 9:20 AM
    Well in part id have to agree, not even im willing to pay for 2x80gb Intel SSD's at the moment for no "real" benifit apart from lightning loading times (what, 2% total time on a system etc) - whatever an SSD can do, a hdd with moving parts can also do :D 
  • 0 Hide
    leexgx , May 21, 2009 12:07 PM
    i just got one of these in my system (s128 and an WD black 1TB for storage want to see why SSDs Samsung and Indilinx Controller chip are king and JMicron are crap do not buy them)
    my test results (could only do read only tests goign to add write later on) http://forum.corsair.com/v3/showpost.php?p=401919&postcount=6
    corsair vs JMicron SSD http://www.legitreviews.com/article/949/5/

    DATA rate is not as important with SSDs as most hdds are not allways doing big file reads the S128 is allso very cheap you could buy 2 of them to get 256gb and same price of an 128gb vertex