Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Intel SSD 313 Series Cache Drives Have Arrived

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 19 comments
Tags :

Intel has released its new SSD 313 Series caching solution featuring Intel Smart Response Technology.

Intel has officially replaced its Larson Creek series (311 series) with the Hawley Creek series (313 Series). The 313 series uses 25 nm SLC NAND flash memory and is designed for Ivy Bridge's new 7-series chipset, while maintaining backwards compatibility with current 6-series chipsets. When used as a cache, the 313 series works seamlessly with Intel Core processors, select versions of the 6 and 7 series of Intel Express chipsets, and Intel Rapid Storage Technology drivers (10.5 and newer) to provide a fast caching solution.

With the push by Intel on the Ultrabook side, the 313 series meets or exceeds the Ultrabook Responsiveness Requirements. Featuring Intel Smart Response Technology, the 313 series -- like most other SSDs compared -- will boosts your computer’s responsiveness with faster boot times, quicker application loads and overall snappier system response times. Because SSDs reduce spinning up of your hard drive, the 313 series delivers high performance with low power. This means longer battery life without sacrificing performance.

The 313 series will be available in two capacities (20 GB and 24 GB), along with two form factors (2.5-inch SATA and mSATA) on a SATA 3.0 Gb/s interface. Intel lists the performance of the drives as follows:

Specification
20 GB
24 GB
Random 4 KB Read (up to)
36,000 IOPS
33,000 IOPS
Random 4 KB Write (up to)3,300 IOPS
4,000 IOPS
Sequential Read (up to)220 MB/s
160 MB/s
Sequential Write (up to)100 MB/s
115 MB/s
Latency:
  Read
72 µs (TYP)72 µs (TYP)
  Write
90 µs (TYP)90 µs (TYP)
  Power On to Ready
2.0 s (TYP)
2.0 s (TYP)

 

The Intel SSD 313 Series can be found at retailers around the price of $120 for the 20 GB version and $140 for the 24 GB version. Though these drives are designed as cache drive with the benefits of its SLC NAND flash memory, it may be hard to justify a 24 GB drive for $140 for this writer when you can easily find very capable larger capacity MLC NAND flash memory based drives for cheaper.

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
  • 12 Hide
    victorious 3930k , April 5, 2012 5:25 PM
    HypertraxxStill, slow, as Intel always is with SSD's.


    :o  How on earth can you call the 520 slow?
Other Comments
  • -7 Hide
    Hypertraxx , April 5, 2012 5:11 PM
    Still, slow, as Intel always is with SSD's.
  • -7 Hide
    confish21 , April 5, 2012 5:19 PM
    lame...
  • Display all 19 comments.
  • -7 Hide
    blazorthon , April 5, 2012 5:24 PM
    Uhhh, Intel... SSDs are supposed to be a lot faster than hard drives, not rather parallel with them. Get with the times and stop making this crap. I don't even see a good reason to make an SSD that doesn't need SATA3 anymore. Sure, even on SATA2 a fast SSD is awesome, but SATA3 drives are backwards compatible, so there's no reason to not use the newer, faster SATA3 and saturate it at least a little.
  • 12 Hide
    victorious 3930k , April 5, 2012 5:25 PM
    HypertraxxStill, slow, as Intel always is with SSD's.


    :o  How on earth can you call the 520 slow?
  • 3 Hide
    victorious 3930k , April 5, 2012 5:26 PM
    blazorthonUhhh, Intel... SSDs are supposed to be a lot faster than hard drives, not rather parallel with them. Get with the times and stop making this crap. I don't even see a good reason to make an SSD that doesn't need SATA3 anymore. Sure, even on SATA2 a fast SSD is awesome, but SATA3 drives are backwards compatible, so there's no reason to not use the newer, faster SATA3 and saturate it at least a little.

    The reason SSDs feel smoother are the IOPS, not the r/w speed.

    BTW, both these comments come from a Vertex 4 buyer.
  • 3 Hide
    eddieroolz , April 5, 2012 5:27 PM
    This article reads like an advertisement.
  • 5 Hide
    jimmysmitty , April 5, 2012 5:29 PM
    HypertraxxStill, slow, as Intel always is with SSD's.


    Yet the 520 has sppeds matching the Samsung 830 and Intel has a PCIe SSD coming out that will pretty much kill anything with its insane 2200MB/s read and 1800MB/s write:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Intel-710-Lyndonville-720-Ramsdale,12956.html

    While I think these drives are a bit over priced, they will still do what they are designed to do; give the HDD an nice bit of speed boost.
  • -6 Hide
    Pawessum16 , April 5, 2012 5:37 PM
    For the vast majority of consumers, at $120-140, it's useless. Hello Intel!!! SSD's have hit $1/GB. I only see this as worthwhile in enterprise reliability oriented environments.
  • 5 Hide
    fudoka711 , April 5, 2012 6:03 PM
    HypertraxxStill, slow, as Intel always is with SSD's.


    These are only used for caching I believe - so I'm assuming they operate in a similar manner to seagate's hybrid drives.

    Intel's 520 ssd's are, as we all know, pretty darn fast.
  • -2 Hide
    hellfire24 , April 5, 2012 6:28 PM
    very fast and reliable.
  • 3 Hide
    jdamon113 , April 5, 2012 6:39 PM
    Hypertraxx :

    I just got the intel 520 drive with sandforce chipset. This is bar far the fastest drive I have owned and I have owned several.
    I get it you dislike intel. So buy your sluggish Amd system, but bitch elseware or at least know what the hell your talking about. NOTE THIS intel drive have a the best reliability, so sure someone can make a faster system but what good is it when they fail. and they fail a lot.


  • 2 Hide
    Anonymous , April 5, 2012 7:55 PM
    wouldn't it be cheaper to get Crucials SSD Cache for around 100$ for 50GB
  • 4 Hide
    bison88 , April 5, 2012 9:08 PM
    HypertraxxStill, slow, as Intel always is with SSD's.



    Bullshit on so many levels, and they market their different SSD's according to the segment they're selling it in, like all other SSD manufacturers do.
  • 0 Hide
    ProDigit10 , April 5, 2012 10:41 PM
    You can't be serious on the pricing! $120 for 20GB?
    Come on!
    I bought my 120GB SSD for almost the same price!
  • 1 Hide
    alidan , April 6, 2012 12:56 AM
    let me take a guess... everyone complaining about cost vs gb dont understand what this drive is for.

    this drive is a cashe drive... this isnt like other ones where it boots crap off of it, this is meant to be a scratch disk and preform in ways that would slit a standard ssds throat.

    in that respect, this drive is expensive, but serves a much needed purpose... kind of... at least in systems where you cant upgrade them in whatever way you want... personally, i would go for a motherboard that could support craptons of ram, and make a scratch disc out of a ram drive.
  • 0 Hide
    victorious 3930k , April 6, 2012 9:52 AM
    alidanlet me take a guess... everyone complaining about cost vs gb dont understand what this drive is for.this drive is a cashe drive... this isnt like other ones where it boots crap off of it, this is meant to be a scratch disk and preform in ways that would slit a standard ssds throat. in that respect, this drive is expensive, but serves a much needed purpose... kind of... at least in systems where you cant upgrade them in whatever way you want... personally, i would go for a motherboard that could support craptons of ram, and make a scratch disc out of a ram drive.

    Enough craptons of ram would cost more than this.

    BTW, the reason it's so "overpriced" is because they use SLC, not MLC, or even the horrible TLC.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , April 6, 2012 2:58 PM
    So what are some typical applications and specific usage examples for something like this?
  • 0 Hide
    doron , April 7, 2012 2:42 PM
    Knowing that Qualcomm is gunning for cheap notebooks, which will be designed to be slim and probably with NAND cells, i feel that Intel is better selling those for way cheaper to OEMs.
  • 0 Hide
    alidan , April 7, 2012 3:41 PM
    victorious 3930kEnough craptons of ram would cost more than this.BTW, the reason it's so "overpriced" is because they use SLC, not MLC, or even the horrible TLC.


    if i had the money, and was using a system that i knew would be having heavy scratch disc use, i would probably get a server board, or at the very least a quad channel intel board, loading that up with 32gb would cost about 200$

    you have to consider the type of system this is aimed at, and that is the person who will use it as a scratch disc because the memory in it can what... withstand a million or so writes? the person who would be looking into this as an option would already be willing to drop craptons on a system already, making this only really viable to a small amount of people who have a great system, but not great enough to make a scratch disc out of ram, and could use one thats faster than a hdd.

    and its not overpriced, i never used that word because i was aware the type of memory its useing.