Skip to main content

Corsair Enters SSD Market With 128 GB SSD

Corsair enters the SSD market as its new Corsair S128 SSD silently hits store shelves.

Although an official announcement has yet to be made, it would appear Corsair has entered into the SSD market.  Appearing recently at e-retailers, Corsair's new S128 SSD features 128 GB of storage capacity and modest sequential read and write speeds of 90 MB/s and 70 MB/s, respectively.  It has yet to be seen if Corsair will offer SSDs in other capacities.

According to Hexus, this Corsair S128 SSD is equipped with a Samsung controller and Samsung NAND flash memory.  Later this year, Corsair is expected to release its second generation of SSDs, which will increase performance to more competitive levels.  These faster SSDs are expected to be based on existing high-performance SSDs, quite possible from Intel, with read and write speeds surpassing 200 MB/s.  It is also believed that Corsair will eventually release SSDs capable of speeds hitting 400 MB/s, but little is known about a potential release date for those.

The 128 GB Corsair S128 SSD has been spotted for order at NCIX for $335.74.  With the cost of SSDs quickly becoming affordable for mainstream users, it may not be long before other companies, such as Western Digital, also feel now is the right time to get on the SSD bandwagon.

Detailed specifications of the Corsair S128:

  • Form Factor 2.5'
  • Unformatted Capacity 128GB
  • User Addressable Sectors 250,069,680
  • Bytes per Sector 512
  • Interface SATA II
  • Sequential Read/Write 90 MB/s read / 70 MB/s write
  • Voltage 5V ±5%
  • Power Consumption Read 0.48W
  • Power Consumption Write 0.46W
  • S.M.A.R.T Support Yes
  • MTBF 1,000,000 Hours
  • Operating Temperature 0°C to 70°C
  • Shock 1500G
  • Width 69.85 mm
  • Height 9.5mm
  • Weight 72g
  • Say what you may, but I still think $335 for a 'slow' SSD is still a lot of money!

    A nice price would be sub $1 per GB flash drives (SSD)
    Reply
  • bone squat
    I agree with pro digit. A more appropriate price would be around $200 for only 128gb..I mean it is ONLY 128gb. That might hold a couple of new games and some mp3s. But it sure isn't going to be well suited for downloading stuff.
    Reply
  • Tindytim
    I rather disappointed. I could understand the slow speeds if this was some sort of cheaper budget model, but it's not, so it's rather pointless to even try.

    Bone SquatI agree with pro digit. A more appropriate price would be around $200 for only 128gb..I mean it is ONLY 128gb. That might hold a couple of new games and some mp3s. But it sure isn't going to be well suited for downloading stuff.Are you kidding? Even if all the games you played installed the capacity of Dual-Layer DVDs, that would be 16 games. The average installs I see nowadays are usually a couple of gigs, not 8.

    Not to mention you could fit well over 15,000 mp3s. Your math skills must suck.
    Reply
  • baov
    It might seem "slow" but this looks to be the samsung SLC drive. Expect no stutter and great battery life.
    Reply
  • B-Unit
    Bone SquatI agree with pro digit. A more appropriate price would be around $200 for only 128gb..I mean it is ONLY 128gb. That might hold a couple of new games and some mp3s. But it sure isn't going to be well suited for downloading stuff.
    You, sir, are an idiot. SSDs are not yet for general storage, they are for high performance disk access, basicly your OS and programs. Anyone whos 'downloading' is going to use traditional hard drives.
    Reply
  • ricin
    "read and write speeds of 90 MB/s and 70 MB/s,"

    That's what you do. Buy somebody's leftover first-gen stock, stick a good brand on it, and sell it for three times what its worth.
    Reply
  • neiroatopelcc
    TIndytimI rather disappointed. I could understand the slow speeds if this was some sort of cheaper budget model, but it's not, so it's rather pointless to even try.
    Are you kidding? Even if all the games you played installed the capacity of Dual-Layer DVDs, that would be 16 games. The average installs I see nowadays are usually a couple of gigs, not 8.Not to mention you could fit well over 15,000 mp3s. Your math skills must suck.In fact many new games DO take up 6-8gb each. At least the majority of those games I've seen over the last 6 months are in the range of 4-9gb.

    B-UnitYou, sir, are an idiot. SSDs are not yet for general storage, they are for high performance disk access, basicly your OS and programs. Anyone whos 'downloading' is going to use traditional hard drives.If indeed this ssd is sold for high performance disk access, wouldn't one be stupid to buy it? I mean - it's SLOWER (sequential read) than a cheap 1tb drive, which will provide a lot more space at a lower cost.
    The only real smart use of this device imo would be in langaming systems, where weight and durability (physical) is as important as performance. So I think you're more of an idiot than the guy that thinks this is overpriced really.
    Reply
  • apache_lives
    were all forgetting that these drives have incredible seek times which perform well with loading apps, windows startup etc - no normal hdd can keep up with a 0.1ms (or less) seek time between files etc
    Reply
  • neiroatopelcc
    apache_liveswere all forgetting that these drives have incredible seek times which perform well with loading apps, windows startup etc - no normal hdd can keep up with a 0.1ms (or less) seek time between files etcWhich has become quite neglible an advantage, if you've got vista and a readyboost usb stick.
    But sure, at random seeks it'll beat a normal drive. Question is, if it's worth 3usd per gb to have, if the alternative is 0.75usd per gb on a drive with inferior seek time, but superior average read time - which is what you need once windows has booted. Since vista automaticly defrags the users harddrive unless they stop it, a lot of reading is sequential these days. And most games ported from crashbox or gaystation load files alphabetically, futher increasing the benefit of sequential fast reading as opposed to better random seeks.
    Reply
  • apache_lives
    Its like Celeron vs Pentium etc - both work, the Pentium being a more expensive and faster solution that the celeron, and is the better choice if you can afford it.

    Heh readyboost caps my network transfer speeds and a few other things down to the pathetic speed of a "high end" pen drive - apps do load faster, but cant be compared to more ram or a faster hdd, in my case Raid 0, 8gb and i used to have ready boots till the network limits etc.

    As for "neglible advantage" - check out what people say on NewEgg - "I have never witnessed a single component change affect performance so much as one of these." http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167005

    In a few months ill prolly pick up 2 for my rig (raid0) - cant wait.
    Reply