backtop


Print 49 comment(s) - last by Burned.. on Dec 29 at 1:03 PM

Intel ships SSD that will add greatly to the cost of a laptop during poor economy

SSDs are continuing the march to ever higher storage capacities and part of the march to higher capacities is ever increasing prices. Perhaps one day flash prices will come down to the point where SSDs are more in line with the price of traditional HDD storage today.

Intel has announced that it is upping the capacity of its line of SSDs to 160GB. Intel is lagging behind its competition in the capacity wars for SSDs. Intel's 160GB capacity is measly in comparison to the massive 512GB SSD that Toshiba announced recently.

At the time Toshiba made the 512GB SSD announcement, pricing for the drives was unknown. CNET News reports that Toshiba is now saying the 512GB SSD will go for $1,652. A similar capacity 2.5-inch laptop HDD sells for under $200. Toshiba's 64GB SSD, announced alongside its 512GB SSD, will sell for $220.

Intel reports that the pricing for its new 160GB 2.5-inch SSD will be $945 in lots of under 1,000. The 2.5-inch SSDs are sized for laptops and 1.8-inch versions of the drive will ship next month for ultraportable laptops according to CNET News. The new 160GB SSDs will be versions of Intel's X25-M and X18-M units.

Considering that the 80GB Intel SSD adds a whopping $659 over the cost of a 120GB HDD in the HP EliteBook 2530, the cost of admission for the new SSD with twice the capacity likely won't be appealing to most consumers.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Uninformed comments...
By ExarKun333 on 12/23/2008 12:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe before posting your "ovepriced" comments you would stop and look at the SPEED of these HDDs. Intel's MLC drives are much faster than most competitor's SLC offerings and are top-notch in terms of quality. You get what you pay for...




RE: Uninformed comments...
By afkrotch on 12/23/2008 1:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
Ya, minor improvement for much much much higher costs. Rather stick with platters.


RE: Uninformed comments...
By someguy123 on 12/23/2008 2:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
the instant random seek time and nearly double the typical read speed of even the fastest enterprise drives sounds like more than a minor improvement to me.


RE: Uninformed comments...
By afkrotch on 12/23/2008 3:44:27 PM , Rating: 4
Do you really know what that means in the real world? Not much.

With a Velociraptor, you will wait about 1-10 secs longer than an Intel's SSD in opening up any and all apps, for about $800 less money and double the storage.

Google Chrome Launch
Intel SSD - 0.57 secs faster compared to Veloci

PowerPoint 2007 Launch
Intel SSD - 2.12 secs faster compared to Veloci

CS3 Launch
Intel SSD - 3.84 secs faster compared to Veloci

Spore Lvl Load
Intel SSD - 1 sec faster compared to any other hard drive

Oblivion Lvl Load
Intel SSD - 2.1 secs faster compared to Veloci

Crysis Lvl Load
Intel SSD - 8.8 secs faster compared to Veloci

Anandtech also had some unlikely scenarios of extracting 5 gig archives and running CS3 or AV scans, but I didn't bother with them. The SSDs do beat the Veloci by a large margin, but not realy something that'd happen.

So for all that extra cash, you can save yourself 9 secs or less in each program loads or do unlikely scenarios to show your "major" increase in performance.

It takes me longer to type the word "wait" then it does to actually wait for some of these programs to load. Much rather just put the $800 towards something better in my comp than an SSD.


RE: Uninformed comments...
By someguy123 on 12/23/2008 5:18:01 PM , Rating: 2
you're talking about regular consumers...this is obviously not aimed at that market. this is aimed at the enthusiast/enterprise market. if this was a consumer device the price would be 200$~ or less. even then you're talking about a few seconds shaved off multiple tasks, and if you use your computer often that really adds up. CS3 doesn't just stop loading off the HD after it's initial load, and neither does any of those other programs you listed.

in a work related scenario 3 seconds saved per load adds up to hours to days of saved time over the course of a month/year. not to mention the ridiculously higher I/O for server use, and the minimal power draw compared to conventional drives of the same speed.


RE: Uninformed comments...
By Zorlac on 12/23/2008 5:27:42 PM , Rating: 3
Also, the same people this product is aimed at spend just as much (if not more) on CPU, GPU, RAM, etc., upgrades just so they can get a few more Frames Per Second in their favorite flavor of the month game. Others would argue that the human eye cannot detect much past a certain FPS threshold, so those sorts of upgrades may be deemed by some as not worth it as well.

I happen to think SSDs bring a real world noticeable difference to the computing experience rather than a game now running at 60FPS instead of 48FPS, etc., and I can bet that once the average user experiences this, then they will want one too. It would be like upgrading from dial-up to high-speed cable internet.


RE: Uninformed comments...
By afkrotch on 12/24/2008 10:32:31 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
in a work related scenario 3 seconds saved per load adds up to hours to days of saved time over the course of a month/year. not to mention the ridiculously higher I/O for server use, and the minimal power draw compared to conventional drives of the same speed.


In work related scenarios, someone isn't going to be opening/closing a program over and over and over again within an hour. They open up the program and keep it open. Sure, they may load up a new picture or something to work with, but I know when I work with a picture. I will spend hours on it.

As for ridiculously higher I/O on a server. A server is probably the worst place to be putting these SSDs. Every single day our own servers are thrashed with read/write situations from our multiple users. These drives would end up needing to be replaced probably ever quarter, if not sooner. FYI, our drives are constantly being written to. Mainly cause the weather constantly changes (I work on server that do weather forecasting). Even our file server gets constantly written too. Was no different when I work on regular networks or intel networks.

Also who'd care about lower power draw? I sure as hell wouldn't. I'd be more worried about the downtime and costs with replacing them. Not to mention, only one company even makes SAS SSDs and they are crazy expensive. These Intel SSDs look like chump change compared to them.


RE: Uninformed comments...
By Ratinator on 12/24/2008 11:27:12 AM , Rating: 3
In terms of not opening and closing programs several times an hour, you obviously aren't a developer. Ask a web developer how many times they open a browser each hour (and no, just using html does not count as being a web developer). Or ask a windows developer how many times they have load their app an hour in order to debug.


RE: Uninformed comments...
By FNG on 12/24/2008 3:10:56 PM , Rating: 2
A constantly written to and read from server? You should want SSDs as they would speed things along for all the spatial data and other bits going into weather effect modeling.

Power consumption is huge IMO. In our 112 drive storage array we are looking at ~2800 watts. While that does not seem like much; when we add all of the other SAN accouterments we are looking at some rather healthy UPS which is not cheap (initial cost, maintenance, testing). Drives that do not spin and use 12x less power become much more palatable when seen from a total cost perspective rather than a Newegg side-by-side.

Besides, who cares if they need replacing every three years or three months? Build that into the support contract for your servers and ensure the redundancy is there to support a failure. One fails, you replace it and ship it back to the OEM who ships you a new cold spare.


RE: Uninformed comments...
By someguy123 on 12/24/2008 7:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
load time IS MUCH MORE than just opening/closing of files, and as the person before me said devs constantly open/close things all the time. you seem to think after the initial load SSDs do nothing. whenever a program needs to load data off the HD, it's taking time to do that work, especially when you're talking about large files such as video. 3-5~ seconds saved on loading the program, then 2 seconds saved per additional load equates to a huge amount of time saved that you would have normally spent just sitting waiting for the load.

the higher i/o is perfect for server scenarios where you aren't constantly writing and rewriting onto the server. even in your scenario conventional drives aren't immune to the wear of constant rewrites, although they currently are more suitable in that regard. who even knows how long these intels survive vs a conventional enterprise drive? they may be surprisingly sturdy.


RE: Uninformed comments...
By icanhascpu on 12/24/2008 4:36:37 AM , Rating: 2
Your little list is worthless considering you assume we are only doing those things a few times a day.

The fact that -everything- on the system is snappy, extremely responsive is a huge advantage and extremely pleasant. Considering i load huge maps and other things dozens of times a day, the fact that im not sitting waiting for even half as long sometimes is a nice luxury.

All you seem to be doing is trying to convince yourself, like others that rated you up, that these arnt much better than a fast HDD, simply becuse you cannot afford them.

So thats fine, what happens when they fall to half the price? Or a price YOU like? Your list suddenly alters to have a positive impact because you suddenly want the product and all those small numbers you pretend are the result of this SSD get a reality check.

Bottom line, if you cant afford it, shut up defending your current hardware. No one cares and EVERYONE wants one of these.


RE: Uninformed comments...
By afkrotch on 12/24/2008 11:12:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fact that -everything- on the system is snappy, extremely responsive is a huge advantage and extremely pleasant. Considering i load huge maps and other things dozens of times a day, the fact that im not sitting waiting for even half as long sometimes is a nice luxury.


Dozens of times a day. So you might save yourself a minute of time at the end of the day. Wow...amazing.

quote:
All you seem to be doing is trying to convince yourself, like others that rated you up, that these arnt much better than a fast HDD, simply becuse you cannot afford them.


Whenever someone shares a different opinion I always get the "it's cause you can't afford it" comment. It's hardly the case.

http://www.afkrotch.com/Random_Pics/Comp/DSC00142....
http://www.afkrotch.com/Random_Pics/Comp/DSC00143....
http://www.afkrotch.com/Random_Pics/Comp/DSC00144....
http://www.afkrotch.com/Random_Pics/Comp/DSC00145....
http://www.afkrotch.com/Random_Pics/Inside.JPG

These pics are a few months old.

Gaming rig with 3 ghz C2D, 2 gig mem, 9800GTX, watercooled, and other crap
Lan party box with 2.4 ghz C2D, 2 gig mem, 8800GT, and other crap
HTPC box with 2.2 ghz C2D, 2 gig mem, 9400GT, and other crap
12.1" Laptop with dual core 1.8 ghz Pentium M, 1 gig mem, and other crap
File server with 3.06 ghz P4, 2 gig mem, 6800GT, 8 TB internal storage, 4 TB external storage, and other crap.

Xbox 360 Premium Japanese (looking at replacing with HDMI version)
Xbox 360 Arcade US
PS3 60 gig Japanese
Xbox 360 Core Japanese (RROD)(watercooling it didn't save it from the RROD.)
Xbox 360 Core Japanese (RROD)

I get around $2000 USD per month of play money after I pay my bills and put $600 into saving. Sure I can save more, but I like playing. You know, spending around $300 a month on games and movies. Maybe another $200 to go snowboarding.

quote:
So thats fine, what happens when they fall to half the price? Or a price YOU like? Your list suddenly alters to have a positive impact because you suddenly want the product and all those small numbers you pretend are the result of this SSD get a reality check


Unless that Intel SSD drops to $200 right now and provides 10x the performance it does now, it won't go in my comp. $1000 for saving me maybe 5 mins a day, pfff. SSD can suck it.

quote:
Bottom line, if you cant afford it, shut up defending your current hardware. No one cares and EVERYONE wants one of these.


Thanks for thinking you even know what my pocketbook looks like. Just for your info, I blow anywhere from $2k to $3k per year on computer items. That's how much I spend after I decided keeping up with bleeding edge tech for minor gains was a stupid idea.


RE: Uninformed comments...
By therealnickdanger on 12/24/2008 1:14:39 PM , Rating: 2
Just curious:

1) What do you need 12TB of storage for?

2) Protecting yourself from teh government with the foil on the windows?

;-)


RE: Uninformed comments...
By icanhascpu on 12/25/2008 5:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
Its pretty obvious you've never even used one of these before. Its like arguing with someone that uses a P4 about how much better a cheap C2D is.

You cherrypick BS qualities like 1/2 a second here and there and ignore the fact that it makes the entire system able to breath and flex its power.

The bottleneck is the hard drive. Still is even with this. Its pretty silly to be arguing price after of the highest grade SSD available after saying you have the money.

Maybe youre just daft?


RE: Uninformed comments...
By therealnickdanger on 12/24/2008 8:10:32 AM , Rating: 2
All those seconds add up and they add up in a big way over the days, weeks, and months. For someone like my dad, who does architecture and 3-D modeling from home, the X25-M has been a God-send! He is constantly accessing massive libraries to open hundreds or thousands of textures and models. His response after upgrading (from 150GB Raptor RAID-0) was the following:

"Wow."

Upgrading him to a quad-core Core 2 Duo (OC'd to 3.0GHz), 8GB RAM, Vista Ultimate 64-bit, and 9800GT (softquadro'd to a FX3700) turned his PC into a rendering powerhouse, but even after that, the move to the X25-M was instantly noticeable. All his "click-to-click" operations are instantaneous and it cuts down his rendering times a bit. That low access time and high read speed works magic! Best of all, it is consistent. No spin-up delays, no wavering throughput.

After experiencing the results first-hand, the "buzz" and "hype" is well-deserved. The price obviously isn't worth it to everyone, at $500, the drive cost nearly as much as the rest of the workstation, but I can't argue with the results. VROOOOOOOM!


RE: Uninformed comments...
By afkrotch on 12/24/2008 11:27:38 AM , Rating: 2
So his massive libraries of hundreds or thousands of textures and models fit on a little 80 gig SSD? Also all the diff programs he'd use?

When I was using AutoCAD, the damn thing took up 12 gigs and I still didn't even throw on extras. After throwing on diff programs I'd say you'd end up having maybe 1/2 the drive to work with.


RE: Uninformed comments...
By therealnickdanger on 12/24/2008 1:09:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, they fit just fine. It's not really the size of the library files, but the large number of them that he uses in his projects or needs access to. All in all, he's only using about 60GB of the total drive capacity (of ~75GB or so after format), leaving about 15GB free. He stores his project files on the network server (500GB RAID-1), which decompress onto his local working folder (SSD), which then follow paths to all the textures and models (SSD) in order to build the plan in real-time 3-D. Of the apps I can remember, he uses ArchiCAD 12, Sketchup, CorelDraw, Poser, Lightworks, and Solidworks.

A year from now, maybe we'll set up a RAID-0 with larger/faster/cheaper SSDs locally and SSDs in the home server. It's his money, not mine.


RE: Uninformed comments...
By Headfoot on 12/26/2008 2:36:45 AM , Rating: 2
It's for servers.


RE: Uninformed comments...
By homebredcorgi on 12/25/2008 4:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, take it from someone that is actually using one of these Intel drives in a laptop. They make a difference. Is it huge? No, but it is certainly noticeable.

Quick comparison from HDtach showed the following:
Stock laptop HD: 30 MB/s read, 18ms latency
Intel SSD: 150 MB/s read, 0.1ms latency

Not to mention damn near silent computing and slightly better battery life. I routinely copy several gigs to the laptop and use it during analysis.

What took 20 minutes to load now takes less than five. Add that 16 minutes up over the course of a few months and the drive has paid for itself. If you really can't grasp why anyone would want these, you just aren't in the target market.

They aren't ready for mainstream yet, but the will be soon.


RE: Uninformed comments...
By Headfoot on 12/26/2008 2:38:30 AM , Rating: 2
Good thing it's not for laptops, because it's for servers.


RE: Uninformed comments...
By Clauzii on 12/24/2008 7:48:25 AM , Rating: 2
The scaling in RAID systems are also a bit better than regular HD's. And I know I say it everytime SSD's are on topic: Silence - Do I just love silent computers.


RE: Uninformed comments...
By Yames on 12/24/2008 11:19:19 AM , Rating: 2
Bunch of whiners... I remember 9 Gig SCSI drives selling for $1.5K in the late ninety's. This is not expensive if we are talking Enterprise and that's who these are for.


RE: Uninformed comments...
By therealnickdanger on 12/24/2008 1:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
The example I always give is that when I bought two 36GB Raptors for ~$500 (total) and put them in RAID-0, they weren't even close to as fast as the new $500 X25-M... plus the X25-M is slightly larger.

The bleeding edge never makes sense to people that aren't on it.


RE: Uninformed comments...
By Quiescent on 12/25/2008 12:56:39 AM , Rating: 2
You have spoken what I was about to post myself: The things I see: All these other people who are releasing "cheap" SSDs have terrible reviews on newegg. Intel seems to have better reviews. Intel seems to have better speeds. Lots of these bad reviews on other companies are complaints that the speeds are not exactly as advertised. I am happy for the SSD bandwagon to pull through in a tough economy, but we do need a company that makes decent ones to keep the SSDs alive, so that not everyone thinks they are bad.

Why since I have this junky 939 socket motherboard that requires RAID drivers to detect the SATA drive to install Windows on, and it's been through a nasty power source, I had to install Windows onto an IDE harddrive. I can definitely see the multitasking difference between an IDE harddrive and an SSD. SSDs are more capable and actually take less time to do the task than IDE harddrives.


The downside of flash...
By therealnickdanger on 12/23/2008 11:25:50 AM , Rating: 3
Prices scale nearly 1:1 with capacity. Even with USB thumb drives which have been around for a much longer time, prices double (more or less) with each doubling of capacity:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Sub...

At present, you would be better off buying two 80GB Intel SSDs and slapping them into RAID-0. You'd have 160GB with double the read/write of the new Intel 160GB SSD.




RE: The downside of flash...
By therealnickdanger on 12/23/2008 11:28:56 AM , Rating: 3
Oops, forgot to include this link:

Intel 80GB X25-M in RAID-0
http://hothardware.com/News/Intel-SSDs-RAID-0-A-Ca...


RE: The downside of flash...
By Nihility on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: The downside of flash...
By afkrotch on 12/23/2008 12:53:41 PM , Rating: 1
Odds would be high that they don't care, since they are using unproven new tech.


RE: The downside of flash...
By Murloc on 12/23/2008 1:31:53 PM , Rating: 5
you could lose all your porn, how sad.


RE: The downside of flash...
By zombiexl on 12/23/2008 1:37:22 PM , Rating: 1
I think the point you are trying to make is that you have 2 points of failure instead of one. Although it wont be half as safe as a single drive, thats just absurd. You are saying it is 2x as likely as one 80GB drive to fail as a 160GB drive.


RE: The downside of flash...
By defter on 12/23/2008 4:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it will be half as safe as a single drive.

Then you have two drives, probability of ONE drive failing, is twice as much compared to having just one drive. The point here is that with raid-0, you lose ALL date if only ONE of two drives fails.


RE: The downside of flash...
By kkwst2 on 12/24/2008 4:51:53 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. You either have never had statistics or failed it miserably. I suggest thinking a little more before calling out other posts as "absurd".


By therealnickdanger on 12/23/2008 1:42:33 PM , Rating: 3
I didn't forget, it's just not worth mentioning. Only half as safe? RAID-0 is never safe in any capacity if you ask me. If you set it up as your working drive (apps, swap files, etc.) and back it up periodically onto a larger RAID-1 or RAID-5 setup, I can't see it being an issue. That would really be ideal.


RE: The downside of flash...
By Quiescent on 12/25/2008 1:01:58 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think this works out the same on SSDs. SSDs do not have moving parts. The problem with RAID0 and a traditional harddrive is because of MOVING PARTS. SSDs are much more capable of higher speeds than traditional harddrive, except that this technology is still fresh for it's time, since they really didn't think of it, until now, that it could be useful for replacing harddrives in the near future.

If SSDs were to become as perfected as harddrives are now, we will have less failures due to movement and other possibilities that happen even before the person receives their harddrives.


Reality Check Required
By Spectator on 12/24/2008 12:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
The logic I dont understand is this.

You can buy corsair 64gig usb stick for $200 (20mb sec ish read/write over usb). Its nand and they make a profit on it yes?

So the realists among us can see that obviously there is a massive amount of profit in the SSD drives atm.

$945 for 160gig equates to $500 @ 64gig = $200. thats making a profit on your nand (Corsair).

So $445 for a good controller !! . then expecting we dont know Intel are one if not the best chip Fabricators in the world. So can mass produce cheaply.

If ppl's are rich enough to buy these en mass. let me know. Ima buy some intel shares while thier cheap :P




RE: Reality Check Required
By Headfoot on 12/26/2008 2:42:47 AM , Rating: 2
You realize the technology didn't magically fall out of the air.

It took a lot of very smart people a lot of man hours to make these things work.


RE: Reality Check Required
By mathew7 on 12/26/2008 7:07:08 AM , Rating: 2
Reality check: what is the speed of Crosair USB stick? You said 20MB/s. USB 2.0 has a maximum of 40MB/s (theoretical). Intel's SSD drives have more than 100MB/s read speed and 90MB/s write speed. I would say that requires much more research & development and the cost is justified. Obtaining that speed is not just internally "RAID-ing" modules, because you would loose speed on small files.

BTW: USB has a big CPU penalty because it was designed as a shared bus, whereas the SATA controller does not because it was designed for high-throuput with minimal latency.


RE: Reality Check Required
By Spectator on 12/29/2008 12:09:06 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm.

The cost to produce silicon is based on Transistor count I thought?

A usb 64Gb drive is an ASS load smaller than those 20? chips on the x25m :(

So what is so special about the nand chips intel produce compared to other SSD producers?. Intel make special one's that cost the extra $445 to make them faster?(best fab in world cost more to make chips..yaa right !!). lol. or they just have a better controller?.

If you look at intel profit reports you will see that they currently Average 30+% from the whole business.

My goal was to show the scope of profit even us simple folk can see in this tech. The sooner they make it cheaper/main stream the more money they will make.

As a simple grunt. I see corsair Happy to sell nand cheaper in bulk. And Intel charging 100+% more for the same total storage.

Intel should use thier strength/skills to take the market now. While they have an advatage, not hand the profits to others who are happy with less profit.

I want intel to do well. I just dont believe they cant mass produce silicon cheaper than the others taking more SSD sales away from them.

What happened to using your strength to crush your rivals? :(.. there not mainly in usa anyways. So who gives a sht.

Times are hard. Stop fooking about and start decimating others while they are weak(poor). such is the way of things :P


Same old Game!
By bobny1 on 12/23/2008 11:25:16 AM , Rating: 1
It probably cost them a fraction of a traditional HDD to produce, but they keep prices riculously high to keep the best of both worlds.




RE: Same old Game!
By Inkjammer on 12/23/2008 11:36:17 AM , Rating: 2
It probably does cost them a fraction of the cost of an HDD to manufacture, but the development time/investment is another story. They still need to recoup those losses.


RE: Same old Game!
By slayerized on 12/23/2008 1:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
When I bought a 2G ddr2-800 for $190 end of 2006. It now costs 30-40bucks at best. Early adoption of anything comes with a premium. So, if you want prices to be ridiculously low, wait for couple more years (just that you would be Kyle from Chinpokomon: S3E42, and I dont mind being that Kyle sometimes!).


RE: Same old Game!
By bobny1 on 12/23/2008 8:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
By the time they get affordable there is a new technology already taking its market share. In my opinion it makes more sense to make it affordable from the beginning and make money on volumen and momentum. That's what toyota did with the Prius.


iNtel 160GB SSD $$$
By fteoath64 on 12/23/2008 11:29:53 AM , Rating: 2
This is MLC and they are demanding such prices. I hope Toshiba prices will nail this product within 2-3 weeks. We need serious competition now that the economy is getting worse.

Shocking from a major supplier of chips.




RE: iNtel 160GB SSD $$$
By rudolphna on 12/23/2008 12:32:33 PM , Rating: 5
Intel SSDs are far far faster, and last longer than any other MLC technology. It is not as clear cut as SLC is faster than MLC. The controller and technology put into it by the maker.


This is for SERVERS and ENTERPRISES
By Headfoot on 12/26/2008 2:36:22 AM , Rating: 2
This is not a consumer product. This is a SERVER product. Having ridiculous read/write speeds and very, very low access times (you can't do both at the same time with RAID) in a low power package.

This thing will SAVE money. If you spend less time transferring files, and they use less energy to do it, then it's just a matter of time before they are paying themselves off.




smokin
By Burned on 12/29/2008 1:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
Cheap Bastard
By Tombpsyco on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Cheap Bastard
By geeg on 12/23/2008 12:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
These drives are for special use like military, spy, avionics, space, etc. not for common use.. So the price does not count but reliability, robustness, etc count


RE: Cheap Bastard
By Headfoot on 12/26/2008 2:44:21 AM , Rating: 3
or not.

It's for servers.... enterprises.

OMG NINJA SERVERS


"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher

Related Articles
Toshiba Takes Its SSDs to 512GB
December 18, 2008, 12:00 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki