Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

New Corsair SSD Line Does 480MB/sec Reads

By - Source: PR | B 20 comments

Corsair's new Performance 3 line of SSDs was designed to take advantage of Intel's Sandy Bridge platform.

Thursday Corsair revealed a new line of SSDs based on the Marvell 9174 controller. Called the Performance 3 series, the new line was designed to take full advantage of the SATA III 6Gbps support native to Intel's new Sandy Bridge platform. They'll also provide full support for TRIM and background garbage collection.

“The new Intel 2nd Generation Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs offer enthusiasts great performance and overclocking flexibility, as well as a platform with new features such as SATA 6Gbps” said Thi La, VP and General Manager for Memory at Corsair. “As a key supplier of performance components to enthusiasts, Corsair is proud to announce a range of products designed to extract maximum performance from this exciting new platform."

Corsair's Performance 3 will arrive in three zippy models: 64 GB, 128 GB and 256 GB. The 64 GB model will offer read speeds up to 365 MB/s and write speeds up to 110 MB/s. The "middle child" 128 GB version will provide sequential read speeds up to 410 MB/s and write speeds up to 210 MB/s while the beefy 256 GB version will provide read speeds up to 480 MB/s and write speeds up to 320 MB/s.

"Paired with a motherboard that includes native SATA 6Gbps support, such as those based on the Intel P67 and H67 chipsets for Intel Sandy Bridge CPUs, Corsair Performance Series 3 SSDs are able to achieve maximum read speeds of up to 480 MB/sec and write speeds of up to 320 MB/sec ensuring a huge boost in system responsiveness, compared to conventional hard disk drives," the company said.

Although Corsair didn't offer pricing, all three SSDs are expected to go on sale later this month.

Display 20 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    HavoCnMe , January 6, 2011 9:41 PM
    Can't wait.
  • 1 Hide
    2real , January 6, 2011 9:47 PM
    probably will be way too much for the average user
  • 0 Hide
    fatkid35 , January 6, 2011 9:55 PM
    i can see my next system upgrade is going to be EX-PEN-SIVE! sandybridge+new mobo and one of these ssd.....ouch!
  • 0 Hide
    endorphines , January 6, 2011 9:58 PM
    WOW, that press release was bought and paid for by Intel... I's not like anyone else in the industry has had SATA II for a year already :-O
  • 0 Hide
    silky salamandr , January 6, 2011 10:08 PM
    Looks great but ill wait till I see what Intels next ssd does on their own sandy bridge.
  • 2 Hide
    lashabane , January 6, 2011 10:17 PM
    endorphinesWOW, that press release was bought and paid for by Intel... I's not like anyone else in the industry has had SATA II for a year already :-O

    Unless someone did a ninja edit, you're reading that wrong.
  • 0 Hide
    burnley14 , January 6, 2011 10:29 PM
    Quote:
    The new Intel 2nd Generation Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs offer enthusiasts great performance and overclocking flexibility


    That's not true about overclocking. And I'm curious why special mention was made to Sandy Bridge, is their SATA III any different from other platforms that offer it?
  • 0 Hide
    alidan , January 6, 2011 10:33 PM
    i have a question, does anyone really care about write speed?

    i mean for me read and io operations are a big must but write? id be satisfied with sub 100 write speeds, so long as they are consistent
  • 4 Hide
    warmon6 , January 6, 2011 11:09 PM
    back spam, Back!
  • 0 Hide
    kcorp2003 , January 6, 2011 11:28 PM
    I ill be waiting for a 512GB version. Thats if price per GB is cheap enough for me to buy. I hope SSD becomes cheap for next gen 2.0 consoles;
    32bit(xbox360) Address space with a slow optical drive are killing developers.
  • 2 Hide
    The_Prophecy , January 7, 2011 1:02 AM
    Quote:
    I ill be waiting for a 512GB version. Thats if price per GB is cheap enough for me to buy. I hope SSD becomes cheap for next gen 2.0 consoles;
    32bit(xbox360) Address space with a slow optical drive are killing developers.


    It's time companies started putting out games on flash modules or some other form of faster media. Optical based media is simply too slow now.
  • 2 Hide
    erraticfocus , January 7, 2011 1:40 AM
    If this new generation of SSDs pushes down the price of the current Sandforce SATAII SSDs I'm happy for it to be out there.
  • 1 Hide
    eddieroolz , January 7, 2011 2:25 AM
    Too expensive for normal guys like me, but let those with deep pockets absorb the cost of R&D!
  • 2 Hide
    Pawessum16 , January 7, 2011 2:32 AM
    I have a feeling that by the time ssd's come into my price range to be able to replace the slow mo 320gb drive in my laptop, it will be time for me to just get a new laptop entirely.
  • 1 Hide
    pinkfloydminnesota , January 7, 2011 2:51 AM
    Why hasn't tom's written any articles about the lack of supply of sata III ssd's?
  • 2 Hide
    JOSHSKORN , January 7, 2011 3:41 AM
    Can't wait until 2012 when these babies might actually be affordable!
  • 1 Hide
    JOSHSKORN , January 7, 2011 3:46 AM
    Meh, on second thought, I'll wait until they have something that runs closer to 700 MB/sec.
  • -1 Hide
    endoftheline , January 7, 2011 3:58 AM
    The_ProphecyIt's time companies started putting out games on flash modules or some other form of faster media. Optical based media is simply too slow now.


    Well they basically do by offering the games online via platforms like steam, etc and allowing you to download them your hard drive. Just get a crazy fast SSD and you can essentially choose to use that
  • 0 Hide
    heartspeace , January 8, 2011 8:33 AM
    Fact is - most people don't realize they dont need a huge size. Put JUST the OS on it and put all the programs/etc on a 7200 RPM drive (if laptop - whatever speed you can decently get that doesn't suck your battery dry as a ... (well leave off the analogy).

    Bottom line, most people will and should afford enough of an SSD for their basic OS. Put the absolute necessary on it, and put all user info/data/programs you dont need/use every day on different drive. It's easier in Windows 7/Vista but Microsoft is still screwed up in their head thinking people don't want their user data separate from their OS. God when will they get a fricken clue that it is a GOOD thing to have OS separate from USER data for backups/reinstalls/restores/etc? 20-30 years and they havent figured it out. As just one example I do this because the OS drive slowly gets bogged down with crap. I pull out my trusted backup that has most apps I use on it, install it, and boom ready to go again. If I have major installs - I load it anyway, do the installs, and save that back up. Makes life so much easier not living with Microsoft's seemingly planned obsolescence of your OS install.

    Regardless, less than 100GB will do, in fact 60GB will prob do for the basic OS install and the one or two MUST have apps that need to be fast as hell on your PC. I realize it varies for each person, and this is a general example, but people can afford these great productivity improvers if they just keep their OS separate from the rest of their crap. Microsoft doesn't make this easy - thats for damn sure. It is the one major update to Windows I would pay an extra $50 for - to completely BE ABLE to separate Programs from OS from Personal Data/Settings. It means I could walk up to any trusted PC -hook up a dual SATA dock or USB 3, and start using the system with my set of programs and my set of data/settings.
  • 0 Hide
    Hash-82 , January 12, 2011 4:51 PM
    Quote:
    Fact is - most people don't realize they dont need a huge size. Put JUST the OS on it and put all the programs/etc on a 7200 RPM drive


    @heartspeace
    While I certainly agree user data should be separate from the system files, I disagree entirely on installing (all) programs on the data volume.

    My primary reason for looking at large SSDs is directly attributable to several programs that take longer to load than my OS does.
    This is on a i7 Quad with 8GB of RAM. So the hardware (less the HD) is not the issue.

    Back to the user files...
    That can easily be changed in the registry.

    For new users:
    HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\ProfileList\ProfilesDirectory



    Existing users:
    Search for the existing user's diresctory in:
    HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\ProfileList\S-1-5-21-*

    Move the directory structure and update the registry key.

    Too easy.