Intel Releasing SATA 6.0 Gbps SSDs Next Month?
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.
- Bethesda Officially Dates Skyrim, RAGE, More
- Crysis 3 Story Already Mapped Out, Says Crytek
- Compulab Puts Tegra 2 into Super Compact PC
- Intel Names Musician Will.i.am Creative Director
- Direct2Drive Now Offers Digital Rentals
- IBM To Build Huge Cloud Datacenter In Asia
- id Software Releases New RAGE Screens
- Blizzard Unveils 3 Custom Games for StarCraft 2
- DRAM Prices at 22-Month Low, Start Buying
- Razer Releases Tiny, Little Portable Speakers
- Congratulations to Our Sandy Bridge PC Winner!
- The AMD Radeon HD 6990 Dual GPU Card is Huge
- Crysis 2 Multiplayer Demo Coming to PC
- Hot Apps of 2011 Week #4
- Nano-Tech Used in Color-Changing Laptop
- QuakeCon 2011 in August, Says Bethesda
- Microsoft Pressing Intel for 16-Core Atom
- Egyptian Government Orders ISPs to Switch Off
not interested. if i get a 512GB SSD for $70 ~ $90 then ill get it. I can wait the few extra seconds to load OS. Same goes for Game loading but in multiplayer thats useless because map rotation are on a timer making sure everybody spawns the same time. 95MB/s - 85MB/s is enough for me.
I don't get it. the 510 drives has really good linear read & write transfer speeds(450/300), but crap read & write I/O (20K/4K)?
The G3 has good(SATA II-like) linear read @ write speeds(250/170MB), but good read I/O & crap write I/O (50K/4K).
Sadly the price/performance still isn't great enough to warrant me coughing up my hard earned cash to add one.
I don't get it. the 510 drives has really good linear read & write transfer speeds(450/300), but crap read & write I/O (20K/4K)?The G3 has good(SATA II-like) linear read @ write speeds(250/170MB), but good read I/O & crap write I/O (50K/4K).
It's all the controller and the interface.
But I think this is wrong, the G3 was supposed to have 50k(4KB)read and 40k(4KB)write. I wish they would switch the G3 to sata III, that would set this thing apart from any other SSD in any situation assuming this would be just as fast as the 510 series sequentially.
I dont see the point in buying an Intel SSD when an OCZ Vertex III SSD has speeds much higher and generally costs a bit less gig/$.
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.
Look out Crucial!
+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
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?
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.
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
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 $165.
just a 1$/gb that's all i'm asking for.
This is getting confusing...
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?
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.
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/$.
because intel is not about blinding speed. people get the intel because it is reliable and has a longer lifespan.
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.
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.
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.
Not there yet.
For years to come the norm will be a cheap ssd with hdd for main storage I believe.
www.thessdeview.com
Sadly 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...
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.
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.
The price is still too high.
Time to buy a Crucial SSD then, I guess.
+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)..
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.
+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 $130 upgrade isn't justified, i wish i had waited.
Did you buy a new system and also get an SSD at that time? Yah, you’ll see incredible improvements. Try upgrading your day to day PC from a fast'ish HDD to an SSD and get back to me on your amazing, awesome deal and how incredibly fast you are now. My machine was quick before, and it still is.
@grieve; Try stuffing a .zip file with Gigabytes of small files while running a defrag of that drive while running an antivirus scan. Then run what you normally run.. You will notice that your Caviar Black will cause the system to crawl whereas with an SSD, it would probably still be responsive.
SSDs pwn with multitasking. But yeah if the person is a light computer user then the cost of an SSD might not be worth it. It all depends on what the bottleneck is for the person using the computer..
just a 1$/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.
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.
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.