backtop

Print 13 comment(s) - last by Silver2k7.. on Mar 29 at 7:21 AM
Intel 320 Series SSDs available in capacities up to 600GB

Intel threw us for a loop when it announced its 510 Series 6Gbps SSDs exactly a month ago. The SSDs didn't use an Intel controller, and instead used a Marvell 88SS9174-BKK2 6Gbps controller. Despite the use of a non-Intel controller, performance for the SSDs was nonetheless impressive with read speeds of up to 500MB/sec and write speeds of up to 315MB/sec. 

Today, Intel announced its third generation "in-house" 310 Series SSDs which now take advantage of 25nm NAND flash memory. Unfortunately, according to AnandTech, these SSDs are around six months late meaning they still use a SATA II interface. Performance is also not quite up to par with the 510 Series, with maximum read speeds of 270MB/sec and maximum write speeds of 220MB/sec. 

The big news is the use of 25nm memory that Intel says allows a 30 percent price reduction compared to the second generation X25-M SSDs. 

"Intel designed new quality and reliability features into our SSDs to take advantage of the latest 25nm silicon, so we could deliver cost advantages to our customers," said Pete Hazen, director of marketing for the Intel Non-Volatile Memory (NVM) Solutions Group. "Intel's third generation of SSDs adds enhanced data security features, power-loss management and innovative data redundancy features to once again advance SSD technology. Whether it's a consumer or corporate IT looking to upgrade from a hard disk drive, or an enterprise seeking to deploy SSDs in their data centers, the new Intel SSD 320 Series will continue to build on our reputation of high quality and dependability over the life of the SSD." 

The Intel 320 Series SSDs will be available in 40GB, 80GB, 120GB, 160GB, 300GB, an 600GB capacities at prices of $89, $159, $209, $289, $529, and $1,069 respectively.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
30% reduction?
By Gungel on 3/28/2011 1:38:10 PM , Rating: 5
$209 for a 120GB is not cheaper than other offerings. The older X25-M is just 10% more ($229). The price should really be around $160 for the new 120GB model to be 30% less than the outgoing model.




RE: 30% reduction?
By B3an on 3/28/2011 2:16:44 PM , Rating: 3
These drives also offer pathetic performance as shown in Anandtechs article. They do not remotely compare to Vertex 3 and others hwhich can be upto 4+ times faster in some areas. If these G3 drives are to sell the prices need to be considerably lower than the G2, otherwise you may aswell just pay a little more to get way more performance with other new SSD's.


RE: 30% reduction?
By Alexstarfire on 3/28/2011 3:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
True, but I noticed that the power consumption is where is did best at. With it's size taken into account it outdid every other device. Is it worth it? Depends on the person. I'm not one to care about battery life THAT much so it means nothing to me. I'd rather have more performance, and much more performance at that, for only a slight increase in power consumption.


RE: 30% reduction?
By therealnickdanger on 3/28/2011 4:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
Then you want last-gen SandForce, I think. I noticed that Intel's power consumption is slightly higher than SF-1200/1500, but about even in performance. Like AT said, it all depends on how much SF-2200 ends up being. With the market pushing to server/cloud-based applications and storage, I don't think longevity, capacity, or even encryption are enough to justify Intel's high pricing.

If you're a saavy enough user to know that you NEED an SSD, then you're smart enough to backup and secure your data on your own. I haven't even used the same SSD for more than 6 months at a time - not long enough to even worry about any of those features.

I might just be the only person in the world who thinks this way, but just give me the speed, please!


RE: 30% reduction?
By sleepeeg3 on 3/28/2011 8:12:50 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, but the SandForce drives seem to have some real issues with reliability. Anyone who has experienced the drive simply vanishing with all of their data knows what I am talking about. The SandForce drives are encrypted, which when the controller fails, it locks up the entire drive. Check out the support forums on any vendor selling SandForce based drives.

Intel, on the other hand, has been a model of reliability. They did have the firmware SNAFU that bricked drives, but their second generation drives have otherwise been super performers. Compared to the Indilinx and SandForce drives I have owned, the Intel has been rock solid.

Also, bandwidth really is not that critical, especially when you compare SSDs to standard drives. The main benefit to SSDs is the massive improvement in access times over magneto-optical. For load times in games bandwidth helps, but for system startup and other usage, it's not really that critical.


RE: 30% reduction?
By B3an on 3/29/2011 12:42:16 AM , Rating: 2
The G3 also now encrypts all data written to the drive, so the same would happen with these. Having all data encrypted is more of a plus though anyway.

People always talk about intel reliability, but who really cares? most people would just stick an OS on an SSD, with some games and software. Anything important is normally saved to HDD's or backed up. I do lots of important work on my PC but i'd still choose something like the Vertex 3 because everythings backed up.

And bandwidth can be very critical, it just depends what you use your computer for. Not everyone does basic things like play games and browse the net. The massive increase in random read/write performance would also be very noticeable on a Vertex 3, especially when it comes to installing software and multitasking.
The G3 just isn't worth the price for something like a couple of percent increase in reliability. IF it even has that - no one knows yet how the new sandforces will do.


RE: 30% reduction?
By supermitsuba on 3/28/2011 2:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like thats because the 120GB model is the cheapest/GB. Im sure thats cutting into the bottom line.


RE: 30% reduction?
By bug77 on 3/28/2011 3:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
I've been waiting for these for a while. 25nm supposedly means a hefty reduction in production price. Luckily Intel shields us from such evil :-(


RE: 30% reduction?
By UnWeave on 3/28/2011 5:17:39 PM , Rating: 3
While I agree that they should be cheaper, particularly in light of the performance, the 30% decrease is only in the cost of NAND; expecting the cost of the whole thing to drop by that much is pushing it.


RE: 30% reduction?
By UnWeave on 3/28/2011 5:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
EDIT: Actually that might be BS on my part. I assumed that's what they were referring to when they said 30% reduction, but if they meant the whole drive then retail prices are indeed way off.


bla bla
By Silver2k7 on 3/28/2011 9:49:49 PM , Rating: 2
If prices where like this it would be better :/
120GB, 160GB, 300GB, an 600GB capacities at prices of $89, $159, $209, $289




RE: bla bla
By Skywalker123 on 3/29/2011 3:55:04 AM , Rating: 2
Even better
120GB, 160GB, 300GB, an 600GB capacities at prices of $.89, $1.59, $2.09, $2.89


RE: bla bla
By Silver2k7 on 3/29/2011 7:21:06 AM , Rating: 2
Skywalker yes, but thats not as likly as the post above :)

Considering that there are now $79.99 WD Green 2TB drives avalible....

One would hope that minuscle drives below 100GB would be ditched.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki