Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Intel Releasing SATA 6.0 Gbps SSDs Next Month?

By - Source: TechConnect | B 40 comments

Intel's 510 Series may arrive in February instead of the G3 SSDs.

Tech Connect reports that Intel may launch its 510 "Emcrest" Series of SSDs next month rather than the previously rumored G3 SATA 3.0 Gbps SSDs. These new drives will have a 6 Gbps interface that should compliment Intel's just-released 6 Series chipsets which provide support for up to two SATA 6.0 Gbps ports.

Arriving in a 2.5-inch form factor, the 510 drives will provide read speeds up to 450 MB/s, write speeds up to 300 MB/s, and reportedly be capable of 20,000 IOPS (Input/Output Operations Per Second) for 4 KB reads and 4,000 IOPS for 4 KB writes. The SSDs will also feature multi-level cell (MLC) NAND memory chips manufactured on 34-nm process technology (although Intel has the means to produce 25-nm chips as seen with the G3). The drives will arrive in at least two capacities: 120 GB ($279) and 250 GB ($579).

Originally it was believed that the G3 SSDs would launch in February. By comparison, these will offer read speeds up to 250 MB/s, write speeds up to 170 MB/s, and use NAND memory chips manufactured on 25-nm process technology. The G3 drives will also reportedly be capable of up to 50,000 IOPS (Input/Output Operations Per Second) for 4 KB reads and 4,000 IOPS for 4 KB writes. Various flavors include 1.8-inch and 2.5-inch form factors, and capacities of 80 GB, 160 GB, 300 GB and 600 GB.

For now little else is known about when the 510 Series and G3 SSDs will actually launch, so stay tuned.

Discuss
Display all 40 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • -6 Hide
    kcorp2003 , January 27, 2011 11:24 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.
  • -2 Hide
    danwat1234 , January 27, 2011 11:32 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).

  • 3 Hide
    Richeemxx , January 27, 2011 11:35 PM
    Sadly the price/performance still isn't great enough to warrant me coughing up my hard earned cash to add one.
  • -1 Hide
    Haserath , January 27, 2011 11:54 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.
  • 0 Hide
    ares1214 , January 28, 2011 12:07 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/$.
  • 1 Hide
    henryvalz , January 28, 2011 12:08 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.
  • 0 Hide
    dogman_1234 , January 28, 2011 12:18 AM
    Look out Crucial!
  • 0 Hide
    mister g , January 28, 2011 12:22 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
  • -4 Hide
    TemjinGold , January 28, 2011 1:10 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?
  • -1 Hide
    aaron88_7 , January 28, 2011 1:20 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 
  • 2 Hide
    kcorp2003 , January 28, 2011 1:28 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 $165.
  • 1 Hide
    eklipz330 , January 28, 2011 1:31 AM
    just a 1$/gb that's all i'm asking for.
  • 0 Hide
    belardo , January 28, 2011 2:02 AM
    This is getting confusing...
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , January 28, 2011 2:16 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?
  • 2 Hide
    kcorp2003 , January 28, 2011 2:20 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.
  • 0 Hide
    el_bastardo74 , January 28, 2011 4:24 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.
  • -1 Hide
    martel80 , January 28, 2011 6:31 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. :) 
  • -1 Hide
    rantoc , January 28, 2011 7:18 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.
  • 0 Hide
    soundping , January 28, 2011 7:57 AM
    Not there yet.
  • 0 Hide
    thessdreview , January 28, 2011 9:47 AM
    For years to come the norm will be a cheap ssd with hdd for main storage I believe.

    www.thessdeview.com
Display more comments