Cool. Do the older ones' prices drop now?

Sequential read and write performance is mostly a marketing tool and means little. I would still go with an Intel SSD for typical use due to the superior I/O of Intel's controller unless I had the unusual need for fast sequential write performance (Maybe for uncompressed 1080p 4:4:4 recording from camcorder to laptop).

Boo, those SSD prices arn't 20$ yet J/k

Where do they put the little turbochargers?

^1+++

amen, i think most of us can wait till theyre at mainstream prices

how about they stop releasing knew technolgy and focusing on bringing the technolgy to eveyone by making it cheaper ? right now , the speed of these SSD are pushing SATA 2 limit and even if they managed to make it even faster , we're not going to use it until SATA 3 has been standardized .

true

It's not about max transfer rates. Those may push the SATA 2 limit, but the average speeds and the lowest speeds are what needs improving. Who cares if your drive can read data at 300MB/s if it only averages 120MB/s. It's those slow times that you'll notice. So I kinda' disagree with what you said about them pushing the SATA 2 limits. At least until they can average 250MB/s+.

This is how they do it, by releasing better stuff, then the older stuff because cheaper.

...all that speed and I still can't get what I need done any faster.

With the slowdown issues related with the OCZ SSDs, I wouldn't consider buying one. Intel SSDs seem fairly trouble free compared to the OCZ without the extra hassle. An OCZ drive never written on will have very high read/writes....after the drive has been used performance will go way down. Check out the reviews on Anandtech.com if you don't know what I mean.

I've almost stopped caring about how fast these little buggers go since I've been waiting and waiting until a decently fast one drops into the more mainstream market.

I don't care if someone makes an SSD that is rated at 10000000000 TB/s. I just want my Vertex for a reasonable price.

I just got done with a benchmark here at work using OCZ Vertex(the original) and the Patriot Warp SSDs. Not only did the Vertex slap the Warp, it's average read speed was ~220MB/s, even when I had all our corporate programs open (some of them are graphics design programs). I would say this new batch of Vertex Turbo's will probably come close to 250MB/s.

And none of the Vertex's I tested had an average read speed below 200MB/s, let alone 120MB/s.

that would depend a whole lot on the "benchmark" your using, are you talking average sequential? pretty sure thisisme is talking about real use averages

Try benchmarking the SSD in a used state then report back the read/write speeds relative to the brand new speeds.

One-shot you are a bit out of date and are a few firmware updates behind.
FW 1.3 now has internal defrag similar to the x25-m but the Vertex also has the use of TRIM which restores performance back to pretty much 100% which is much more efficient than internal defrag methods.
Please do some 'actual' research before spreading mis-info!

OCZ has been working like a dog with these SSDs now. New ones literally each month. Now when are they going to make them CHEAPER. $409 for 128GB of space X_X

I really want one... but I really need at least 200GB...

I will wait next year, the price and the technology will be finally available in 3.5 inch drive.

^get a ssd and another hdd (if laptop, external laptop drive 500GB)

^ I for example need a 256GB SSD AND a 1TB magnetic data drive. Currently I have a 74GB Raptor boot + 500GB data drive, but I see the boot drive getting full fast with applications. Just thinking of the future when applications comes in Blu-Ray media and the OS needs 24gigs just for the hibernation file.

32 GB for 139.99. Id rather buy 2x WD Cav Blacks 640Gb and raid. These drives are waaaaaaay to $$$ for now.. Hopefully in a year the price's should be more reasonable.

when will we see a review on it?

LOL, How much time before somebody hack the firmware updater and succesfully update a regular Vertex with the Turbo one firmware? If its only a firmware difference and the Cache DRAM speed, then it's all software. That's pure profit for OCZ.

Gskill SSD's have a very similar performance and they are much more cheapper

The 32GB SSD seems quite affordable to me. Probably the only one I might consider buying for a notebook, given that it's power consumption is as low (or lower) as a notebook HD.
The >32GB SSD's seem still too far from affordable for me.

As far as I see it, on my notebook I need about 128GB with WinXP, and about 150GB with Win7.
But if I'd just be using the OS and programs, and all my downloaded stuff goes on an external HD, XP could run just fine with 32GB. If I'd load the notebook with Win7 or Vista, I'd probably also need a 64GB SSD, to be able to host all my software,games, Swap $ Hibernation file, and personal documents and data; and have additional space available to do some work with.

I agree with ProDigit80 on the 32GB $$. Its affordable, although I would rather have 2 @ RAID0 for the home PC.. Pure performance, permanent data can be on my NAS.

Laptop, Id rather get the single 64 as 32 is just enough for simply the OS.