Intel Announces New 320 SSD Series

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
TOPICS
Kevin Parrish
Contributor

Kevin Parrish has over a decade of experience as a writer, editor, and product tester. His work focused on computer hardware, networking equipment, smartphones, tablets, gaming consoles, and other internet-connected devices. His work has appeared in Tom's Hardware, Tom's Guide, Maximum PC, Digital Trends, Android Authority, How-To Geek, Lifewire, and others.

  • scook9
    Shame these weren't out last to beat the sandforce first gen stuff

    Now everyone cares only about Sata 3 :(

    If I had not just gotten a pair of G2 120GB drives I would have gotten these instead
    Reply
  • kcorp2003
    waiting on the new Z68 chipset to see what kind features it offers for SDD/HDD setups. I can probably afford the 80GB model.
    Reply
  • thrasher32
    $1069 for the 600GB version??? OUCH
    Reply
  • JamesSneed
    "more than 1 billion" SATA 3.0 Gb/s PCs already sitting in homes and businesses worldwide." Here I thought drives with SATA 6.0 Gb/s are backwards compitible SATA 3.0 Gb/s controllers.
    Reply
  • eklipz330
    thrasher32$1069 for the 600GB version??? OUCHthat's less than $2 per gig!!!
    Reply
  • jprahman
    I don't quite get why these drives don't support SATA III. I mean the listed reason is compatibility, but SATA III drives were compatible with SATA II controllers.
    Reply
  • JohnnyLucky
    The bulk of the Intel advertising indicates the 320 is a "mid-level" ssd and the target audience consists of users with SATA II (3 Gb/s) systems. Looks to me like Intel knows where their "bread and butter" is. At 1 billion pc's there is an awful lot.
    Reply
  • ap3x
    thrasher32$1069 for the 600GB version??? OUCH
    Huh, that is a great price for 600gig SSD. Are you commenting that that is just allot of money in general or a high price for a SSD. I have never seen a decent performing SSD at 500+ gig for less than that?
    Reply
  • jprahman
    9280566 said:
    The bulk of the Intel advertising indicates the 320 is a "mid-level" ssd and the target audience consists of users with SATA II (3 Gb/s) systems. Looks to me like Intel knows where their "bread and butter" is. At 1 billion pc's there is an awful lot.

    I understand that, but since SATA III drives are backwards compatible with SATA II systems, then why not have the drive support SATA III for those that do have SATA III systems. I mean I can't think of a good reason other than a possible small increase in cost not to make the drive SATA III.
    Reply
  • maxiim
    Dont forget those are wholesale prices for retailers, I'm sure that 1069 is gonna be a good 1200+ per if not more.
    Reply