Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Intel Readies New 313 Series Caching SSDs for Ivy Bridge

By - Source: VR Zone | B 22 comments
Tags :

With Ivy Bridge around the corner, Intel is set to release its new 313 SSD caching series based on 25 nm SLC NAND flash memory.

Intel is set to replace its Larson Creek series (311 series) just in time for the Ivy Bridge processors with the Hawley Creek series (313 Series). The 313 series will use 25 nm SLC NAND flash memory and be designed for Ivy Bridge's new 7-series chipset, while maintaining backwards compatibility with current 6-series chipsets.
 


In addition to moving to 25 nm NAND flash from 34 nm NAND flash, Intel will now be offering two capacities of 20 GB and 24 GB with the 313 series (only 20 GB with the 311 series). We aren't exactly sure what the extra 4 GB will give you in a cache drive outside of the extra capacity, but Intel has added it for a reason, so we'll have to play the waiting game on its benefits. As with the 311 series, the drives will still utilize a SATA 3.0 Gb/s interface and will be based on either a 2.5-inch or mSATA form factors. The 2.5-inch drives will be 7 mm tall versus the 9 mm of the 311 series. This move continues the trend by most SSD manufactures to decrease the size of SSDs to allow the drives to be utilized in Ultrabooks. 

As for pricing, it looks like Intel's MSRP for the 20 GB model is around $99 dollars and the 24 GB around $119 dollars. These new drives should be available for purchase around the time-frame of the Ivy Bridge and 7-series chipsets launch.

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 13 Hide
    EDVINASM , February 22, 2012 12:14 PM
    Can someone explain why should this 20GB drive should be purchased for $100 when 80GB is only $20 more? Lightning fast speeds? Sexy casing?
  • 11 Hide
    rpmrush , February 22, 2012 12:33 PM
    It's SLC NAND. It's durable and hence expensive. MLC is not durable enough for a cache drive. Constant writes would wear MLC out too quickly. SLC is ideal for cache. Yes it is expensive, yet reliable for this application.
Other Comments
  • -5 Hide
    maximiza , February 22, 2012 12:12 PM
    Awsome boot drive
  • Display all 22 comments.
  • 13 Hide
    EDVINASM , February 22, 2012 12:14 PM
    Can someone explain why should this 20GB drive should be purchased for $100 when 80GB is only $20 more? Lightning fast speeds? Sexy casing?
  • 8 Hide
    ragenalien , February 22, 2012 12:15 PM
    But I can almost get a 128 Gb drive for that??
  • 2 Hide
    fatalshot808 , February 22, 2012 12:20 PM
    I think we can all agree $1-2 per GB is a standard now for SSD. 5$ per gigabyte too much I don't see the point in paying that much for very limited storage. I understand this is a cache drive but for 20Gb you can get alot more bang for your buck.
  • 11 Hide
    rpmrush , February 22, 2012 12:33 PM
    It's SLC NAND. It's durable and hence expensive. MLC is not durable enough for a cache drive. Constant writes would wear MLC out too quickly. SLC is ideal for cache. Yes it is expensive, yet reliable for this application.
  • -3 Hide
    drwho1 , February 22, 2012 12:35 PM
    To me this is both a waste of time making this useless POS, and a waste of money for anyone who would fall for this ****.

    (go ahead thumb me down)

    But to me, a better or at least decent boot drive has to be at minimum 120GB.
    I would prefer mSata 120GB IF they would use their OWN controller without having to disable one SATA
    controller.

    mSATA disables one SATA controller which makes it a BAD choice.
    (I want the flexibility to ADD more TB drives, so loosing ONE SATA controller does not make me happy at all)
  • 1 Hide
    classzero , February 22, 2012 12:38 PM
    Until the drives are affordable, No thank you.
  • 8 Hide
    a4mula , February 22, 2012 12:52 PM
    These are intended as use as cache drives working with Intel Smart Response Technology. You do not install anything to them. 20GB is more than sufficient for space in this role and because this is a SLC drive it's going to stand up to the wear of the cache writes. If you have no interest in SSD caching then obviously you'll look elsewhere.
  • 5 Hide
    warezme , February 22, 2012 1:12 PM
    a4mulaThese are intended as use as cache drives working with Intel Smart Response Technology. You do not install anything to them. 20GB is more than sufficient for space in this role and because this is a SLC drive it's going to stand up to the wear of the cache writes. If you have no interest in SSD caching then obviously you'll look elsewhere.
    So why not just have 24GB or more of system memory and create a cache drive off of that on boot up? It would be faster and cheaper.
  • -5 Hide
    Vatharian , February 22, 2012 1:15 PM
    These are NOT intended to use as any VISIBLE disk at all.
    I'm using two X25-E 32GB for my squid proxy machine as cache storage, and these need faster replacement, since number of users went up from 20 to 80. When you compare the X25-E and 313, these are practically as for free. I'm in! Simple H67 mobo will suffice for four of them. After that upgrade old X25-Es will end up in raid 1 as boot drives.
  • 0 Hide
    mcvf , February 22, 2012 1:20 PM
    edvinasmCan someone explain why should this 20GB drive should be purchased for $100 when 80GB is only $20 more? Lightning fast speeds? Sexy casing?

    SLC
  • 2 Hide
    EDVINASM , February 22, 2012 1:39 PM
    mcvfSLC


    Maybe so. Still, only good for performance hungry i.e. server applications etc. As for caching better use one SSD as boot and whatever else for storage. Only a gimmick IMO for home use. I have Intel Sata3 SSD as main drive and PC boots in ~30sec. 40 if have all my office software starting. And that's on cheapo Z68 board + i3 2100.
  • 0 Hide
    CaedenV , February 22, 2012 1:57 PM
    1) this is a cache drive, not a boot drive, so it does not need to be effective (though a 20 and 40GB option would make more sense than 20 and 24).

    2) This is SLC which means it will last longer... but load balancing on a larger MLC would likely last just as long if not longer for the same price or less.

    3) SATA2? Seriously? Even cheap SATA3 drives will run circles around this thing when it comes to throughput... and at a much cheaper price point.
  • 0 Hide
    CaedenV , February 22, 2012 2:02 PM
    caedenv1) this is a cache drive, not a boot drive, so it does not need to be effective

    lol, I think I meant "does not need to be large to be effective"... I am sure it needs to be effective in the general sense :p 
  • -1 Hide
    EDVINASM , February 22, 2012 2:04 PM
    Also, knowing the HDD market prognosis for next 6 months it is hard to see what these SSDs will be accelerating :)  No way I am buying 2 WD Blue for RAID or even storage anymore. SSDs and the rest just keep deleting when not needed.
  • 1 Hide
    Chainzsaw , February 22, 2012 2:11 PM
    This is a waste, $5/GB in this day and age? Come on Intel!

    I also would go against SRT - it's better to go for a full blown - ssd than having an SSD as a cache for your HDD. This way your SSD is working 100% of time time rather than when your OS/Programs get loaded after a few sessions in an SRT setup.
  • 0 Hide
    elbert , February 22, 2012 2:28 PM
    This drive is ony SATA 2.0 with 3GB's a second. I cant see how even cherryville wouldn't destroy this in every way.
  • 1 Hide
    LordConrad , February 22, 2012 3:01 PM
    Price is ridiculous. I would get a larger 64GB SSD and under-size the partition a bit to leave some extra room for wear-leveling.
  • 0 Hide
    syrious1 , February 22, 2012 3:07 PM
    so is SLC used in conjunction with MCL drives? what is the point of a cache drive if your other drives are SSD already?
  • 0 Hide
    CaedenV , February 22, 2012 5:45 PM
    syrious1so is SLC used in conjunction with MCL drives? what is the point of a cache drive if your other drives are SSD already?

    you wouldnt as your SSD drives are likely faster than this is. this would be to cache a standard HDD
Display more comments