backtop

Print 69 comment(s) - last by Mojo the Monke.. on Jan 28 at 2:21 PM

  (Source: Scan.co.uk)
Corsair finally enters the SSD field

Back in March 2008, Seagate's then CEO Bill Watkins proclaimed that he was unimpressed with solid state drives for the notebook market. "Realistically, I just don’t see the flash notebook sell," opinioned Watkins.

Well, since that time, 2.5" form-factor SSDs have exploded in popularity for both notebook and desktop platforms. Prices have steadily dropped and performance has increased from month to month. And while SSDs are steadily carving out a piece of the notebook storage market, Watkins is now out as Seagate's CEO.

While Watkins may have not seen the benefit of SSDs, a longtime holdout to the market has finally decided to throw its hat in the ring. Corsair is joining the likes of OCZ and Super Talent with its own MLC-based SSD. The S128 as its name implies features a total of 128GB of storage space. However, Corsair is bucking the trend of current "value" MLC SSDs by using a Samsung controller instead of a JMicron 602 controller.

JMicron's controller has been blasted for poor sustained write speeds and stalling/hanging issues when performing write operations.

Corsair lists read/write at a leisurely 90 MB/sec and 70 MB/sec respectively. For comparison, OCZ's budget Solid Series SSDs are rated at 155 MB/sec and 90 MB/sec while the mainstream Apex Series SSDs are rated at 230 MB/sec and 160 MB/sec respectively. These two SSD families, however, use JMicron controllers.

Hopefully, Corsair's choice of Samsung NAND flash paired with a Samsung controller will lead to more consistent performance in everyday usage.

According to Hexus, the S128 are currently priced at £326.54 which is roughly $448 USD.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Not Yet
By bandstand124 on 1/21/2009 2:45:07 PM , Rating: 4
I don't think SSD represent good value yet and have a ways to go. The technology is by no means mature, I would hate to buy one and for them to be twice the speed a year later.




RE: Not Yet
By h0kiez on 1/21/2009 3:54:29 PM , Rating: 4
Sign me up when they don't get 50% faster and 50% cheaper every 6 months. I'm all for the progress, but for now I'll wait.


RE: Not Yet
By twhittet on 1/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: Not Yet
By Alexstarfire on 1/21/2009 9:12:26 PM , Rating: 2
Except that you actually would be using all that speed, it just not be a necessity.


RE: Not Yet
By erikejw on 1/22/2009 7:49:18 AM , Rating: 1
"These two SSD families, however, use JMicron controllers."

I beleive they are updates controllers that have nothing in common with the old bad one. Just because they made one controller that was abysmal does not mean all the others are.

I'd make sure that the new controllers does not have the same problems before I'd buy a product though.

I guess that the bad JMicron controller was not even meant to be used with SSDs and was not properly architectured to these devices.


RE: Not Yet
By therealnickdanger on 1/22/2009 2:27:56 PM , Rating: 2
The JMicron interview indicates that the "bad" controllers were never intended to be used in anything beyond basic desktop/mobile devices, usually paired with slower SSDs. They sold their controllers to SSD companies that used them for high-performance drives, exposing the weaknesses of the controllers. It all makes sense in hindsight. In either case, JM no longer supplies the "bad" controllers, they have been revised.


RE: Not Yet
By Calin on 1/22/2009 3:48:31 AM , Rating: 2
A Porsche is fast enough for normal use, and big enough for one or two persons.
On the other hand, will you buy now a brand new, classic Beetle (1.2l air cooled engine, two seats for adults and two seats for children) or wait a year for a new beetle, bigger engine at a lower price? Or maybe wait two years for an even bigger car (Jetta or Passat) with even more performance at even lower price?
There are some cases when you won't - but those will be the exception rather than the rule


RE: Not Yet
By on 1/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: Not Yet
By MrPoletski on 1/23/2009 4:25:08 AM , Rating: 2
RAID 0 CoreV2 SSDx2 flies..

Especially with a 256MB cache hardware raid controller card ;)


RE: Not Yet
By surt on 1/21/2009 3:57:13 PM , Rating: 3
Well, for that year you'd have great speed, versus spending the year waiting for great speed.

Also, assuming you buy a mid to high end one, you won't see speeds doubling because they are already performing at more than 50% of the maximum bandwidth of a sata connection.


RE: Not Yet
By Quiescent on 1/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: Not Yet
By Mojo the Monkey on 1/21/2009 5:28:34 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly, from the way you talk about your computer and your upgrade intervals, you dont exactly sound like a power user who needs to spend 3K on a computer. Go spend $650 and save the rest until you find something you cant do.


RE: Not Yet
By Quiescent on 1/21/2009 7:05:49 PM , Rating: 3
Really? You don't think 3rd party VSTi plugins, Fruity Loops Studio, Photoshop, or even WoW will push any of that?

What if I want to keep 40 tabs open? What if I want to keep all of those programs open except for WoW? What if I want to keep open 20 explorer windows?

Fruity Loops Studio hurts on a Q6600 with 4GB of RAM when you end up having about 30-40 plugins open, and a 6 minute song with more than 50 patterns. And get this: FLS is more floating point intense. I just love it when I try to work with an EQ plugin and an error pops up saying Floating Point error occurred at 0 (Something close to that, I have a snapshot of it on my currently inaccessible desktop somewhere I believe, if I didn't delete it!)and I have to kill FLS and restart it, because it basically just crashed. And it sounds like a horror story with it's repeating that small piece over and over again.

It's all about SPEED! And I have no patience for a computer that I can break down and cause it to be slow. Also did you notice when I said I wanted to even push this computer, as crazy as it sounds, to last me 10 years?


RE: Not Yet
By Quiescent on 1/21/2009 7:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah, and I'm upgrading my soundcard and headphones. The soundcard is included in that $3k cost. It's going to be a DSP soundcard, which is going to cost about as much as that SSD. IF it's still around by that time. However, I will always be recalculating my costs.


RE: Not Yet
By dj LiTh on 1/21/2009 10:57:14 PM , Rating: 3
Save your money if your using fruity loops lol thats just a joke. If you were serious you'd be using reaper/cubase/nuendo, or still more serious you'd be using logic 8 on a mac or atleast an ihack.


RE: Not Yet
By Oregonian2 on 1/21/2009 10:22:59 PM , Rating: 2
If one wants to push speed without regard to cost (not something that dominates the market, IMO), rather than marginal improvements at great cost in going from a hard drive to a SSD, perhaps massive memory (in presumably a 64-bit system) to provide massive disk cache and perhaps not even need a swapdisk would provide a lot more overall performance ( as well as being cheaper than SSDs as well). SSDs may be faster than hard drives, but DDR(2/3) memory would run circles around SSDs.


RE: Not Yet
By Mojo the Monkey on 1/28/2009 2:21:36 PM , Rating: 2
Right, what YOU didnt understand is that in less than 3 years, another $600 investment will yield more power than your 3000 right now, and you'll have a better computer for the rest of the 7 years. Same goes for another upgrade 2 years after that... all still under your 3000 budget. Over the life of the 10 years, you will have far superior performance for more time if you upgrade smaller but more frequently. Your "seriously powerful" computer will be a joke in 5 years. Imagine as it approaches 8, 9, and 10.


RE: Not Yet
By UNHchabo on 1/22/2009 2:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a better idea: instead of spending $3k and trying to make it last 5-10 years, spend under $1k every 2-4 years. You'll save tons of money, and in 8 years your machine will be fairly good, instead of massively old.


RE: Not Yet
By icanhascpu on 1/21/2009 4:36:16 PM , Rating: 2
" I would hate to buy one and for them to be twice the speed a year later. "

lol... Like that doesn't apply to everything inside your computer. I guess you never upgrade anything for fear it will be replaced by something much better within a year?


RE: Not Yet
By Schrag4 on 1/21/2009 5:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, waiting is the right thing if what you're using right now it 'good enough'. Now, if he's doing something that's so drive intensive that he's waiting around in agony all day, cursing his slow drive access, then yes, your argument makes perfect sense.


RE: Not Yet
By icanhascpu on 1/21/2009 5:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, because the only time people upgrade is when its when things take an 'agonizingly' long time to preform.

Uh, no?

I wonder how many of you have actually had a properly working SSD in your system or are you all just looking at the transfer speeds and price then making up some asinine excuse why its no good instead of just admitting its not worth the money for -you- right now even though the product itself is fast as hell over your current platter driven drive.

To each their own, honestly, but dont make up silly reasons blaming shortcomings of the hardware.


RE: Not Yet
By Schrag4 on 1/21/2009 7:38:45 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say anything (bad or otherwise) about the hardware. All I said is that upgrading if you don't think your computer is 'slow' is just a waste of money.

A Ferrari would be an upgrade from my family sedan. Does that mean I should do it? No, because my car is 'fast enough', and it actually has more storage capacity than a sports car and costs much less. Kinda like the SSD and mechanical drive situation...


RE: Not Yet
By icanhascpu on 1/21/2009 9:06:14 PM , Rating: 2
In general, people will defend their 'stuff', even if other 'stuff' is better, if they cannot afford it. Things like "good enough" and "dont need more" come to mind. But thats all rubbish to make oneself feel better about what they have now, it has no solid point against the device in question.

The thing is, your perception of what 'slow' is, changes when you get experience with things that are actually fast.

The corrolation youre making with cars is majorly flawed.

1. The difference in price is several orders of magnitude higher.
2. "Fast Enough" here is actually practical, due to speed limits and safety.
3. 'Space' is irrelevant as Vista + games and applications can all fit comfortably on a 64GB drive. No one stores movies and large documents on these drives with any advantage. Its not what they excel at.

Your hard drive isn't going to explode, nor will you get a ticket for it going a hell of alot faster than your current non-SSD based one.


RE: Not Yet
By Alexstarfire on 1/21/2009 10:19:17 PM , Rating: 3
Well obviously if you're throwing around money like it's from Monopoly then you're just going to get whatever is the best or whatever you like the most. If you have to actually watch what you spend then getting the best deal for what you actually NEED is most important, and that is certainly worth defending. Course, sometimes you make a complete mistake about what you buy and can't defend it because it's obviously horrid, but if you're smart enough then that rarely happens.


RE: Not Yet
By icanhascpu on 1/21/2009 10:41:36 PM , Rating: 2
No, its not worth defending in the way that some are. Its worth not even coming here to drool over SSDs that they can't afford or -need- while saying that the SSD really isnt all that great ect ect. to make themselves feel better about what they have now.

Ignorance is bliss, and after reading all these SSD articles they start desperately grasping for their ignorance again by pointing out how unpopular SSDs are based on how many of their friends have one and other irrelevant points some are trying to make.

FACT of the matter is, and you can search for dozens of reviews that support this, the I/O on these drives makes a HUGE improvement in general performance regardless of cache. The only people that are seeing little to no difference, are the lowend (web/word use) and the highend (15k HDD, RAID0 x4 drives ect)

The vast majority of people would see a very pleasant performance boost with their OS on one of these things.

Some of them should goto newegg and read the reviews. Or better yet, get your hands on one and see the difference.

Also, -need- is not such a great word to use with computing. Most of us do not need a computer to begin with. We would survive (most of us). Most dont even need past a A64, but that doesnt stop us now does it.


RE: Not Yet
By Alexstarfire on 1/22/2009 3:01:03 AM , Rating: 2
Ohh, I'd stand by my decision of getting a 1.5TB drive as it's primarily for storage. I'd love to get my hands on a SSD, but it's just not worth the cost in my opinion. It's getting pretty close though. If you can really get a 32GB SSD for about $80 then it's almost time for me to look into getting them. I'd only use the SSD for the OS and other very commonly used apps, like OpenOffice and whatever game is taking up most of my time, which right now it's just Age of Empires 3. 16GB would probably be big enough now, but 32GB would last for a while. Things like video files and disc images I will always keep on HDDs as I doubt SSDs will ever become cheaper than them. Only need to get the price to about $1-$1.50 per GB then I can get one.


slooow
By Rebel44 on 1/21/2009 2:15:39 PM , Rating: 2
read/write at 90 MB/sec and 70 MB/sec is slower than my normal HDDs - link: http://img164.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1311dg3.j...




RE: slooow
By tastyratz on 1/21/2009 2:58:18 PM , Rating: 2
And its not entirely about raw mb/s
There are many different scenarios where that ssd would beat the pants off your drives, such as muti user database access. The worst of current SSD iops and random access times are multitudes better than any single rotational drive I have ever seen.
They also produce far less heat, useless electricity, and have more shock protection.

While the 70-90mb is not that impressive in itself, it's not that shabby compared to most current drives.


RE: slooow
By rudolphna on 1/21/2009 3:07:37 PM , Rating: 2
even at same/slower read and write speeds, SSDs still have a huge advantage in seek time. Think about it, even my brand new WD 640GB Harddrive has a 13ms average seek time. SSDs have below 1ms seek time. That adds up.


RE: slooow
By walk2k on 1/21/2009 4:38:42 PM , Rating: 1
Not really when you have 16-32MB buffers seek times become irrelevent.

This is a 2.5" laptop drive though, not for desktops.


RE: slooow
By icanhascpu on 1/21/2009 4:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
32MB buffer does very little to make up for the huge advantage of 1ms access time, let alone 'irrelevAnt'.

Im not sure what you mean by 'laptop drive'? Yours is? Because the performance would be even bigger in the advantage of the SSD


RE: slooow
By mindless1 on 1/21/2009 5:08:12 PM , Rating: 1
Except that you are ignoring caching (in main memory). Only now are most SSD (besides Intel's) barely fast enough that people aren't complaining about constant lagging effects running the system compared to mechanical HDD.

SSD are the future, maybe that future is even here for the right price, but the advantage is small to none for most uses. Benchmarks aren't real world uses.


RE: slooow
By icanhascpu on 1/21/2009 5:14:40 PM , Rating: 1
The caching in general still needs to be loaded from the hard drive in the first place. Also, unless you have 16GB + of ram, Vista isnt going to keep you stuff cached for long.

The advantage is much bigger than you think, and the people suffering from the stuttering are the vast minority. It seems more widespread because obviously one will be more vocal when things fuck up than when everything works as intended.


RE: slooow
By mindless1 on 1/23/2009 11:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
You are insane. As much of a bloated pig as Vista is, 8GB of memory is quite a lot to do caching. Even 4GB is reasonable, albeit a penalty when comparing to XP.

The advantage isn't all that great. You don't notice people complaining about stuttering issues with mechanical HDDs, even when benchmarks are ran by reviewers they try deliberately to have rebooted and not have things cached which misrepresents the typical user experience.

SSDs are a good future tech, even current tech for those who need low latency most, but there's still a way to go before a reduction in latency, used with OS that can cache over a GB of apps, will make a substantial difference. Instead more level headed people see the reasons as lower power, higher reliability, and higher performance if the budget is quite a lot higher.

This will change, no argument that SSD are the future for client systems opposed to fileservers till the density increases enough, but today we are not there yet.


RE: slooow
By walk2k on 1/21/2009 8:23:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it's a 2.5" laptop drive. The performance is very good for a laptop drive, not that great for an enthusiast desktop (7.2k-10k) or server (15k) drive.


RE: slooow
By icanhascpu on 1/21/2009 8:47:49 PM , Rating: 2
I dont see what your drive size has to do with anything?

SSD drives are 2.5 inch regardless. Also, for servers, all that is cared about is I/O rate witch SSD drives excels at.

SSD > 15k for servers. Not to mention SSDs are sometimes even a cheaper method than 15k for that sector.


RE: slooow
By mindless1 on 1/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: slooow
By icanhascpu on 1/21/2009 5:20:23 PM , Rating: 2
Old CF cards dont have comparable transfer speeds. Youre not making a very good point.

These SSDs will preform better in random access even with slower sequential speeds due to the access times. Saying you can just buy GBs of RAM is ridiculous. Vista doesnt magically know what you want cached before you click it. It can just make a guess, and even then, its still loaded from the slow access hard drive.


RE: slooow
By mindless1 on 1/23/2009 11:53:42 PM , Rating: 2
You weren't talking about transfer speeds, you were talking about latency. My point hit the target.

Access times are a trivial amount of total time for much of what disk I/O is done on a PC, for the reasons already mentioned, caching in main memory.

Vista doesn't have to magically know anything, it already prefetches and caches. Thus far, you have ignored the obvious, only high priced alternatives, and several of them, can give the hypothetical performance without lag plus the capacity we expect.


RE: slooow
By icanhascpu on 1/21/2009 4:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
I MUCH rather have the SSD than your hard drive.

You do realize that your hard drives top speed is bottlenecked by your random access speed right? Meaning you will rarely see that speed except for when youre copying huge files.

On the other hand, the SSD will have a 0.1-1MS access speed compared to your 14+. Being that most things on your computer and not accessed sequentially, the SSD will be much much snappier, and have faster loading times in many games and applications.

That is unless you defrag every night before bed.


RE: slooow
By kmmatney on 1/21/2009 7:42:45 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly, load times are hardly ever an issue with current hard drives. You load up a program once, after which it loads up almost instantly the next time. I hardly ever reboot my desktop. I would like to have an SSD, but the benefits don't yet outweight the cost (but its getting there).


RE: slooow
By icanhascpu on 1/21/2009 8:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
Great, but that sounds like light desktop use. People doing light use do not even need to care about this sort of thing. For people like me that multitask intensive applications, loading this, compressing that, copy this, launch that, virus scan this, photoshop that, the hard drive WILL start to grind away. Regardless of how well defragged or how well partitioned!

The benefits for a light use will obviously see much less of a performance boost.


Nonsense
By mindless1 on 1/21/2009 5:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
SSDs have not exploded in popularity by any stretch of the imagination. Everyone I know has a computer, if not several. I can count on one hand the number of people I see in real life, opposed to online, that have an SSD in any system. I can't count on all my hands and toes the number of people with more than one system, that have no SSDs.

That's not popular, that's the false reality of the internet marketing machine.




RE: Nonsense
By icanhascpu on 1/21/2009 5:34:09 PM , Rating: 3
In other news, your friends dont make up a relevant percentage of the populous to determine wither or not SSDs popularity is exploding.

Also, 3.2 million people in 2008 alone would disagree with you. It was MUCH lower in 2007. I would call that exploding in popularity.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com...


RE: Nonsense
By icanhascpu on 1/21/2009 9:08:37 PM , Rating: 2
I guess actual data rather than "what my friends have" is voted down on this site?

Shame.


RE: Nonsense
By Schrag4 on 1/21/2009 9:23:41 PM , Rating: 1
Ok, yes, many more SSDs were sold in 2008, but according to that article that you cite, the market share that SSDs ended up with rounds up to 0.54%

As in, for ever 54 SSDs sold, there were 9946 HHDs sold. I'm not sure if that really counts as 'explosion in popularity', even if there were far fewer sold the year before.


RE: Nonsense
By Schrag4 on 1/21/2009 9:31:48 PM , Rating: 1
Not only that, but I wonder how many of those 3.2 million SSDs were bought for use in military and other applications where SSDs are actually needed (due to their ability to withstand extremely high acceleration, etc). I highly doubt there are actually 3.2 million consumers who think SSDs are a good value at current prices and capacity.

You say you'd rather have the SSD (in another post), well, I'd rather have the extra cash in my pocket and my current HDD that is adequate. I mean, duh, if someone's giving them out for free then yeah. I'll take a Ferrari and my own private jet while they're being given out for free...


RE: Nonsense
By icanhascpu on 1/21/2009 9:51:32 PM , Rating: 2
If you wanted to find that out, youre free to do research instead of baseless conclusions on the number to make a point.

Also, the explosion is based on how many SSDs were sold prior, not how many were sold in relation to legacy storage technology.


RE: Nonsense
By Schrag4 on 1/21/2009 10:07:09 PM , Rating: 1
I'm using YOUR numbers to point out that the 'explosion in popularity' went from COMPLETELY UNPOPULAR to STILL COMPLETELY UNPOPULAR. Let me point out (again) that I'm not saying that the hardware is good or bad. I'm just saying that calling SSD sales numbers this year an 'explosion in popularity' is totally misleading. It would be much more accurate to describe it as 'an explosion in sales which still leave SSDs vastly unpopular.'


RE: Nonsense
By icanhascpu on 1/21/2009 10:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
"I wonder how many of those 3.2 million SSDs were bought for use in military"

That, obviously, was what I was referring to. If you want to find out how many were bought for military, go ahead and reserch it. At the same time, you can tell us how many HDD they got at the same time.

In the end you'll come up with a number that's irrelevant to the point that was made. SSD popularity has grown very large in 2008. Some might say.. it exploded in popularity from previous years. ;)

You're confusing yourself because you're comparing it against regular HDD sales, and its not being compared to anything but itself in previous years. The logical error is yours, not the articles.


RE: Nonsense
By Schrag4 on 1/22/2009 1:35:20 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
SSD popularity has grown very large in 2008.


It's statements like this that are obviously crafted to be misleading. 'Grown very large' doesn't make much sense. You could have meant that SSD sales, compared to the previous year's SSD sales grew by a factor of several. That would be true, but it still doesn't point out that for every 1000 computers sold in 2008, you can count the number of SSDs on one hand, meaning they're still largely unpopular.

Or it could have meant that SSD popularity has grown TO what would be considered very large popularity in the non-volitile storage market, which is utterly false of course. Again, 5 drives per 1000 sold were SSD in 2008.

quote:
You're confusing yourself because you're comparing it against regular HDD sales,...


That's like someone from Sony telling me that I'm confusing myself with those pesky XBox360 and Wii sales numbers. Competitors in the market are always relevant, especially when you're debating 'popularity.' (that's what this particular thread of comments is about, right?)


RE: Nonsense
By mindless1 on 1/23/2009 11:56:52 PM , Rating: 2
No, you're just what we like to call a "tech whore", your identity is based upon clinging to the next best thing, even before it is best.

It is a sign you can't use current tech as well as the rest of us, that you make excuses and blame the hardware for user shortcomings. We have seen this kind of thing before, it has been common for years and it is only a sign you will never be able to just use a computer without finding problems as an excuse for underperforming as a user.


RE: Nonsense
By Alexstarfire on 1/21/2009 10:31:02 PM , Rating: 2
What numbers are you looking at? The only numbers I can find in the article he linked to are from 2008 and the predicted numbers for 2009 and 2012. The only numbers listed for 2007 and the HDD shipments, which they say have gone up since then. With no information about 2007 sales for SSDs it's impossible to say if it's an "explosion."

BTW, an explosion of popularity would mean that there are significantly more users in one year than the previous year, meaning a large ratio between the two years. In terms of actual numbers between two different products, in this case SSD and traditional HDDs, it doesn't matter which has the majority, or in this case vast majority.


Samsung
By afkrotch on 1/21/2009 1:31:21 PM , Rating: 2
If it uses Samsung chips and a Samsung controller, why not just buy a Samsung SSD instead.




RE: Samsung
By V3ctorPT on 1/21/2009 1:51:39 PM , Rating: 3
Because of the cool Corsair sticker... aarrgghhhh maties....


RE: Samsung
By RU482 on 1/21/2009 1:51:52 PM , Rating: 2
you're not going to find a 128GB Samsung for $448


RE: Samsung
By ChronoReverse on 1/21/2009 1:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
Interestingly enough, it's available at ncixus for $333.15


bring on the cheap, small SSDs!
By plonk420 on 1/21/2009 5:47:05 PM , Rating: 2
i'm wanting ~$20-30 8GB or $30-40 16GB drives...




RE: bring on the cheap, small SSDs!
By kmmatney on 1/21/2009 7:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
The have 32GB SSDs at NewEgg for $79 - not too far off. I would buy one if I knew the JMicron controoler issues were fixed.


By icanhascpu on 1/21/2009 9:10:21 PM , Rating: 2
Youd probably never find out if they were it seems, as a google search has for months come up with fixes.


By plonk420 on 1/21/2009 10:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
don't even need 16... i can get XP and distributed computing on 8gb (could probably do 4 if i tried hard). it only needs to be faster than a craptastic 133x generic CF card. i could probably even virtualize pfsense (my original desire for an SSD to begin with) on that 8 as well...


By icanhascpu on 1/21/2009 10:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
By Alexstarfire on 1/21/2009 10:37:48 PM , Rating: 2
I fail to see where the Titan beat Intel. In certain tests it beat one of the Intel drives, but it never beat both of them. As such I would say that it did not beat Intel in terms of speed as an Intel drive was at the top of every graph.


By icanhascpu on 1/21/2009 10:48:15 PM , Rating: 2
Its as good or better than Intel drives then. My bad.... for a fraction of the cost!


By Alexstarfire on 1/22/2009 3:11:20 AM , Rating: 2
It never even came close to the top Intel drive, except for seek times.


OCZ SSDs have much better $/GB and performance
By KingstonU on 1/21/2009 3:56:05 PM , Rating: 2
This 128 GB drive cost $3.5/GB and run at 90/70 MB/s read/write speeds while the OCZ SSDs cost $3.08/GB and they run at 230/160 MB/s read/write speeds.

If OCZ doesn't have problems with the updated Jmicron controllers then they are a much better product at a better price.




By TheFace on 1/21/2009 5:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
That is a review I would like to see. What is the current state of the SSDs? What series have the JMicron controllers and which have updated ones or use different ones? Or more precisely which SSDs do not have the "hang up" issues that are the hang up for many people. I had thought that the JMicron controller issue was limited to certain SSDs, including the OCZ Solid series. I didn't think that the Apex series was one of them but, alas, I really have no idea. I have not seen any recent roundups of SSDs.


a note.
By pxavierperez on 1/21/2009 5:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
'Realistically, I just don’t see the flash notebook sell,' opinioned Watkins.


Should be " opined Watkins", no?

I thought not utilizing JMicron chip would improve speed.




RE: a note.
By icanhascpu on 1/21/2009 5:37:02 PM , Rating: 1
"I thought not utilizing JMicron chip would improve speed. "

Yes, because JMicron only makes one chip for SSDs and never updates bugs in it.


"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan



Latest Headlines
2/10/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 10, 2012, 5:50 PM
2/9/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 9, 2012, 11:54 AM
2/8/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 8, 2012, 1:11 PM
Ex-Acer CEO Slapped With Lawsuit for Joining Lenovo
February 7, 2012, 5:38 PM
2/7/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 7, 2012, 12:23 PM
2/6/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews -- Intel 520 240GB SSD Edition
February 6, 2012, 12:04 PM
botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki