Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

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

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 50 comments

Intel said that it's shipping a value-priced SSD, the X25-X, before the end of the year.

An Intel partner recently informed us that Intel has an upcoming value SSD called the X25-X, which will be based on 34nm Flash memory, thus providing consumers a lower pricetag and competitive performance.

The SSD will fall short in both price and speed in comparison to Intel's X25-M series, which offers 250 MB/sec. read speeds, and 70 MB/sec. write speeds. Intel's other SSD, the X25-E, provides 250 MB/sec. read speeds and 170 MB/sec. write speeds, and costs a rather pretty penny.

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. The drive is poised to be priced under $160.

The X25-X should ship sometime before the end of the year, and will arrive as a 2.5-inch MLC drive with an earnest 40 GB capacity.

Display 50 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 32 Hide
    Gin Fushicho , October 17, 2009 12:48 AM
    I saw under 160 bucks and got excited... then saw 40GB's. Doesnt seem any cheaper to me.
  • 26 Hide
    fatkid35 , October 17, 2009 12:42 AM
    4 bucks a gig. no thanks!
  • 20 Hide
    porksmuggler , October 17, 2009 1:28 AM
    The 80GB X25-M is currently $289 on newegg. how is this a value at $169 for 40GB, plus it's much slower?
Other Comments
  • 26 Hide
    fatkid35 , October 17, 2009 12:42 AM
    4 bucks a gig. no thanks!
  • 32 Hide
    Gin Fushicho , October 17, 2009 12:48 AM
    I saw under 160 bucks and got excited... then saw 40GB's. Doesnt seem any cheaper to me.
  • 17 Hide
    mlcloud , October 17, 2009 12:53 AM
    What the guys up there said.
  • 12 Hide
    randomizer , October 17, 2009 1:05 AM
    Write speeds aren't much chop.
  • -8 Hide
    ubernoobie , October 17, 2009 1:05 AM
    wow 40mb/s read, no thanks
  • 19 Hide
    False_Dmitry_II , October 17, 2009 1:09 AM
    With that write speed, I'd still much rather go with a VelociRaptor.
  • 5 Hide
    randomizer , October 17, 2009 1:13 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.
  • 8 Hide
    El_Capitan , October 17, 2009 1:25 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.

  • 20 Hide
    porksmuggler , October 17, 2009 1:28 AM
    The 80GB X25-M is currently $289 on newegg. how is this a value at $169 for 40GB, plus it's much slower?
  • 11 Hide
    jaragon13 , October 17, 2009 1:32 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.
  • 1 Hide
    snotling , October 17, 2009 1:39 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
  • 1 Hide
    randomizer , October 17, 2009 1:44 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?
  • 9 Hide
    daship , October 17, 2009 2:28 AM
    LMAO, EPIC fail this time Intel. If it were 80G, maybe, but forty, LOL.
  • 7 Hide
    OvrClkr , October 17, 2009 2:35 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....
  • 1 Hide
    Darkness Flame , October 17, 2009 3:17 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.
  • -1 Hide
    amdgamer666 , October 17, 2009 3:27 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.
  • 4 Hide
    M3d , October 17, 2009 4:09 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.
  • 2 Hide
    one-shot , October 17, 2009 4:41 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.
  • 3 Hide
    Master Exon , October 17, 2009 4:55 AM
    Kind of a drag, really...
  • -1 Hide
    descendency , October 17, 2009 5:00 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.
Display more comments