backtop


Print 71 comment(s) - last by Spectator.. on Jul 22 at 1:11 PM

OCZ brings a new low to SSD pricing

NAND flash manufacturers have been promising lower prices for solid state drives (SSDs) for quite some time now. We've only just recently seen some serious price erosion on modern, SATA-II flash drives.

Super Talent turned quite a few heads when it announced its MasterDrive MX series of SSDs in early May. The 30GB, 60GB, and 128GB drives have an MSRP of $299, $449, and $649 respectively (although online retailers like Newegg currently stock the drives for a bit less money). The MLC-based drives feature a rather impressive read speed of 120MB/sec, but the write speeds lag far behind at just 40MB/sec.

OCZ is looking to trump Super Talent push down-market with faster SSDs at even lower price points. The company today announced its new Core Series 2.5" SSDs which are the most affordable, large-capacity SSDs that we've seen to date. The 32GB, 64GB, and 128GB models are priced at $169, $259, and $479 respectively -- the drives also feature a two-year warranty.

And unlike the Super Talent MX SSDs, these new Core series doesn't give up much in terms of speed to its more expensive rivals. OCZ is projecting read speeds of 120 to 143 MB/sec and write speeds of 80 to 93 MB/sec. All Core Series SSDs feature a mean time before failure (MTBF) of 1.5 million hours.

"SSDs offer higher performance, reliability, and energy efficiency than conventional HDDs but the cost variance has limited adoption of vastly superior SSD technology, until now," said OCZ Technology CEO Ryan Petersen. "It is our mission to deliver the highest performance products to consumers at reasonable prices, and with the release of the Core Series SSDs we have done exactly that."

OCZ did not specify an exact launch date for the new drives, but given that pricing has already been announced, the drives will likely hit the market very shortly.



Comments     Threshold


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

Those are some "WOW" numbers.
By wordsworm on 7/1/2008 9:44:45 AM , Rating: 3
$169 for 32 GB hard drive is precisely the right price I needed to see. It's enough for a laptop for me. Longer battery life, faster, and most importantly - endurance, are the primary reasons to spend a few extra dollars. It's really what I've been waiting for to justify the purchase of a Linux/Windows 2000 based laptop. Heck, I might just get something like that to put Vista on for my desktop - though I'm more about performance for my desktop.




RE: Those are some "WOW" numbers.
By vapore0n on 7/1/2008 10:16:04 AM , Rating: 1
I think the "longer battery life" thing was debunked?

anyways

Once they get to an even lower price point, my plan is to raid 0 them and use it as the bootable windows drive.
It was proven that they scale linearly. 2-3 in raid = very happy customer...till the whole thing dies lol


RE: Those are some "WOW" numbers.
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/1/2008 10:19:34 AM , Rating: 5
Actually, the Tom's Hardware article was debunked by their own readers in the comments section.


RE: Those are some "WOW" numbers.
By retrospooty on 7/1/2008 10:24:33 AM , Rating: 5
ACtually, anything and everything at Tom's must be taken with a grain of salt... its been that way for a decade now... it bothers me that people still go there and take info from it.


RE: Those are some "WOW" numbers.
By Rodney McNaggerton on 7/1/2008 7:50:18 PM , Rating: 4
The personal opinions of the authors always show through the articles, and I've stopped reading TGDaily because they picked up Theo Valich from the Inquirer who spreads BS whenever he can. Nothing he says is ever right, and he always reports speculation, nothing is ever fact with him. He's as bad as Faud Abauzak(?).
Saying that Tom Hardware is unbiased is like saying that Engadget isn't completely in love with Apple(and reports more Apple stories than any others), it's a complete farce.

RANDY MCNAGGERTON


RE: Those are some "WOW" numbers.
By BruceLeet on 7/2/2008 12:24:38 AM , Rating: 4
Uh I thought it was Rodney Mcnaggerton.

You sometimes refer to yourself in 3rd person and sometimes speak as if you were from the 19th century, you cant get your name right. I think you should get an evaluation, especially if you have kids...you dont wanna, you know, pull a Chris Benoit


By Rodney McNaggerton on 7/2/2008 6:50:24 AM , Rating: 4
Can't a man try something new every once in a while?


By wordsworm on 7/2/2008 7:18:37 AM , Rating: 2
Do they get paid anything decent? Or is it all volunteer? Seems to me I could write stories that are as accurate as the National Enquirer.

For awhile, I thought that the writers at DT were a bunch of nuclear power plant working or Microsoft/Intel engineers investing Green Peace haters. Every publication is likely to have its own opinions and biases peak through, but at least it's honest. Then there's the real dark side - the one that gives good reviews only to companies that give good gifts. I think the only way to really trust a review site is if it doesn't get to keep the goodies afterwards.

What would be nice to see is some other sites, ie Anandtech, TechCrunch, et al, take on the task of either verifying or debunking Tom Shardeware's claims/data.


RE: Those are some "WOW" numbers.
By Samus on 7/2/2008 2:54:46 AM , Rating: 2
Heh, yea, Tom's staff are great guys but I've always questioned the 'payoff factor' of their reviews. They are often bias from one extreme to another. If you were to read any of their archives going back to the Radeon 9000/Geforce 5000 era, you'd see contradicting driver comments and performance numbers between every review.

That's the last time I visited the site.


RE: Those are some "WOW" numbers.
By Clauzii on 7/1/2008 11:46:31 AM , Rating: 2
Ha ha :)


RE: Those are some "WOW" numbers.
By deeznuts on 7/1/2008 1:21:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Actually, the Tom's Hardware article was debunked by their own readers in the comments section.


Confucius say - "He who reads Tom's Hardware and believes ... IS A FOOL!"


RE: Those are some "WOW" numbers.
By wordsworm on 7/1/2008 8:31:10 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Confucius say - "He who reads Tom's Hardware and believes ... IS A FOOL!"


That wasn't Confucius, that was Mr. T.


By kenji4life on 7/1/2008 11:47:31 PM , Rating: 4
Actually Mr. T. said "I pity the fool who reads Tom's Hardware"

Confucius say - "He who writes Tom's articles is a fool, but he who reads them to seek truth, is a moron."

But the most well known saying is of course: "Who is more foolish, the fool who leads by writing stories for TGdaily, or the fool who follows by reading them?"

Okthxbuhbye


RE: Those are some "WOW" numbers.
By Calin on 7/2/2008 3:27:48 AM , Rating: 2
This "longer battery life" thing is everywhere.
It really depends on your usage scenario, and on your laptop, and your old and new hard drive. In some cases (replacing a slow mechanical drive with a fast SSD based drive) you could even get a shorter battery life (there was an article on Anandtech about replacing the mechanical hard drive in a Mac Air with a big, expensive SSD, and battery life was shortened some - at least in some usage scenarios).


FINALLY!!!
By retrospooty on 7/1/2008 9:44:34 AM , Rating: 2
32g is more than plenty for Windows, and most peoples apps. Put your games, movies and mp3's (if you have large collections of either) on a std hard drive and your set for $169. A 64gb is affordable too! Thats the one for me. I can put all my apps and several games that I am currently interested in on it.

Woohoo!!!




RE: FINALLY!!!
By AnnihilatorX on 7/1/2008 9:53:46 AM , Rating: 2
I am running Vista in a 16GB SSD.
32GB is plenty.

I do think the faint hearted should not try to load Vista in a 16GB disk though. You need to install only essential small applications in the SSD. And you need to set up NTFS junction points to move "Common Files" folder, "Program Data" folder, "Local Temp" folder to another drive. Also hibernation has to be disabled.


RE: FINALLY!!!
By Pudro on 7/1/2008 12:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am running Vista in a 16GB SSD.
32GB is plenty.


Maybe for you, and maybe for a laptop for me. But not for a desktop. My Windows folder alone is 30 GB (swelled by certain language packs and what-not). I know that this is bigger than most people would have, but I am a gamer as well. So I would want to be able to have a couple of games installed on the drive as well. And those surely won't be small.

I think I could make the 64 GB drive work, however.


RE: FINALLY!!!
By Silver2k7 on 7/2/2008 1:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
my windows vista folder is 15 Gb, would never take the chanse and install it on a 16 Gb drive lol.. might not even fit after its formatted.

also i dont see the point in having separate drives for installed programs/games and windows.. if you need to re-install you got to format all that either way, since the way the windows register handles installations.. not like the dos days when you could just save the folder of your installed program and it would still work.

Also wasnt this SSD business supposed to be lots faster than the mechanichal HDD's... so when we get to say 750Gb and 200Mb/s+ for $400 then I might be tempted.


RE: FINALLY!!!
By hadifa on 7/2/2008 12:06:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
you need to set up NTFS junction points to move "Common Files" folder, "Program Data" folder, "Local Temp" folder to another drive.


Care to explain?

I guess you move the local temp to reduce the wearing of the flash memory. But what about the other two? And doesn't wear leveling algorithms take care of this?


RE: FINALLY!!!
By eion on 7/2/2008 1:47:22 AM , Rating: 2
He was talking about a 16GB SSD. Presumably the items he mentioned simply wouldn't fit.


RE: FINALLY!!!
By hadifa on 7/2/2008 2:08:55 AM , Rating: 2
That makes sense, thanks for the clarification.


RE: FINALLY!!!
By shabby on 7/1/2008 10:08:39 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, gimme gimme gimme!


RE: FINALLY!!!
By ChronoReverse on 7/1/2008 1:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, this is exactly the price range that will get me to jump. I'm already thinking about getting one when it shows up locally in western Canada.


All hail OCZ
By Visual on 7/1/2008 9:58:01 AM , Rating: 2
I officially am in love with OCZ as of today.
And this will drive other manufacturers' prices down too...
Not that these prices are cheap, but they are "cheap enough". Enough for them to get bought more and become more mainstream, leading to higher production, competition and even lower prices. Soon the difference between a normal HDD and a SSD may be even less than tenfold. Yay!
I will buy the 64GB one, and if I like it maybe two for a raid.




RE: All hail OCZ
By Clauzii on 7/1/2008 11:24:02 AM , Rating: 2
I paid ~$250,- for my first drive with gigabytes on the label: An IBM 6GB noisy, clackering beast in 1999. Still 100% ok, btw.

So getting a 64GB, NO NOISE, SUPERFAST, SMALL and powerfriendly SSD for $279,- is the obvious choice for me right now!! IF the speed is as they claim, I'm impressed!

From now on SSD's are THE choice for system disc and SUPERFAST RAID arrays. The HD's just got a little more obselete...

Given my actual age I shouldn't but right now I'm jumping around like a 6 year old getting THE christmas present of the year :))


RE: All hail OCZ
By rudy on 7/1/2008 4:11:32 PM , Rating: 3
Wait for bench marks and reviews to come out. Recently they announced a fast drive with samsung for much more why this one would perform so well and be so fast does not add up. I think in real world tests it will not be that good otherwise it would canabalize their faster drive.

When SSDs completely surpass the latest raptor in every possible test then I am going to get one until then though they are not worth the premium.


RE: All hail OCZ
By Clauzii on 7/1/2008 6:28:55 PM , Rating: 2
For me the NOISE factor is premium so I'm ready if tests give a thumbs up.


RE: All hail OCZ
By hadifa on 7/2/2008 12:12:25 AM , Rating: 3
You're right, not all SSDs are fast. They have great random access but most cheap ones have terrible read and write performance.


RE: All hail OCZ
By Clauzii on 7/2/2008 3:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
I would say that even if tests should show it 10% slower than advertized, it's still pretty sweet.


ssd internal speeds
By tastyratz on 7/1/2008 7:40:51 PM , Rating: 4
I never understood why SSD drives have not been phenomenally fast. If they can write at speeds they have now. Why cant they internally stack the drives through raid or something similar for a protocol transparent to the user?

For example.

Why cant they make a 3.5 version in 64gig form with 2x 32 gig drives internally, or a 128 with 4x32gig internally?

They could market this has high end high performance and control them with raid similar logic onboard (not like raid 0 is very demanding).
Depending on how large they have to be why not go further? I want to see these cracked open. Is this all 1 single memory module internally?

Why do we not have a $600 version with 500+mb read speeds?




RE: ssd internal speeds
By lagitup on 7/1/2008 10:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
then, you could get 4 of those and put them in a raid, for 2gb/s speeds! I like the way you think!


RE: ssd internal speeds
By hadifa on 7/2/2008 12:19:29 AM , Rating: 2
But I thought that's how the very fast/expensive SSD drives are working.

Remember seeing a benchmark showing some SSD has sustained read speed of about 200MB/s or over and at the time it seemed (or I thought) the SSD is limited by the SATA2 interface.

I will see if I can locate the bench


RE: ssd internal speeds
By vapore0n on 7/2/2008 8:10:19 AM , Rating: 2
Read a review where they raid 0 8 drives, and scaled in read write linearly, up to the max the raid controller card could hold, 800MBps or so, when normal speeds are in the 100s.

Very expensive to do , but insanely fast.


Left out of the party
By mooncancook on 7/1/2008 2:16:10 PM , Rating: 3
All the latest new lower-cost SSD announcements are 2.5" SATA. It looks like my Sony TZ and all those ultra-portables that use 1.8" IDE drives are left out of the party. I thought the notebooks with 1.8" drives need the speed and power-saving of SSD the most.




RE: Left out of the party
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/1/2008 2:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
I guess they're going where the volume is first, and 2.5" drives > 1.8" drives in that area.


RE: Left out of the party
By Visual on 7/2/2008 4:10:08 AM , Rating: 2
But on the other hand, you can use a 1.8" drive anywhere that a 2.5" or even 3.5" would fit, and not the other way around.
And I gotta wonder, isn't the actual tech inside the drive really smaller than even 1.8", and it's just put in a big case for compatibility? Wouldn't that make producing the smaller variant equally cheap as the larger ones, if not even cheaper due to the less casing material?

The smaller drives can really be much more useful.
I can imagine a 5.25" 'drive' on my front case panel that has 5-10 1.8" drive slots in it, hot-plug, working either as separate drives or even in raid5... sweet future...


Wait a sec!
By DXRick on 7/1/2008 2:45:05 PM , Rating: 2
OCZ already has a 32GB one selling on the Egg for $599. So why would they offer a new one for much less, rather than cut the price of the current ones? Will they continue to sell the expensive ones too?

What is the difference between them that makes one much more expensive than the other??? Something smells a tad fishy here.




RE: Wait a sec!
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/1/2008 2:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
The one on the Egg probably uses SLC memory and I'm betting that this one uses MLC.

That being said, you can view the OCZ press release right here:

http://www.ocztechnology.com/aboutocz/press/2008/2...

Pricing info is confirmed -- there's nothing fishy about it.


RE: Wait a sec!
By DXRick on 7/2/2008 2:56:20 PM , Rating: 2
What I meant is that it is odd that they could offer new drives that offer the same speeds for so much less. What did they do to make the drives so much cheaper? MLC is slower than SLC, but the new drives have the speed of SLC.

If the cost of making the drives dropped, why not just drop the price of the current drives? I would like to know if I would be paying for less quality for less money before buying.


Upgrade time!
By Baked on 7/1/2008 1:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
I think I got a boner just from reading the article title.




RE: Upgrade time!
By rudolphna on 7/5/2008 1:14:17 AM , Rating: 2
lmfao! Thats great lol :D


official release date
By tastyratz on 7/3/2008 2:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
I spoke with OCZ and was given this information directly!

Hi Kurt,

It should be available at www.zipzoomfly.com after July 11th, the 64GB and 128GB will be rolled out first and 32GB right after.

Tom Wong

OCZ Technology




RE: official release date
By tastyratz on 7/3/2008 3:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
Additional information

32GB will be out 3rd week of July. Yes, we already sent out of bunch reviewers samples so you will be seeing those benchmarks very shortly.

Tom Wong

OCZ Technology

Senior Account Manager


Quicker than I thought
By BruceLeet on 7/1/2008 10:07:19 AM , Rating: 2
Here comes my RAID 0




W-O-N-D-E-R-F-U-L
By DeepBlue1975 on 7/1/2008 8:11:02 PM , Rating: 2
The bright future that SSDs are supposed to have is kicking in with this announcement:

Now many will dare to buy 32gb drives and so will help prices going down even further :D

For those concerned with lifetime:

"MTBF 2 000 0000 Stunden "
The article says 1.5m hours.

For a normal HDD the usual figure is around 60.000 hours.

1.5m hours = 171 years, 1 month, 11 days, 15 hours, 25 minutes, 30.18 seconds

The lack of mechanical parts makes it shock / motion resistant, you could even drop it accidentally without breaking it, provided the case is resistant enough not to tear into pieces.

120-140mb/s read = sustained transfer rate, no ifs about inner or outer zones.

RAID 0 with drives like these, with such a high MTBF, makes a lot more sense than with mechanical drives, including the fact that these drives have no physical moving head to synchronize, the read and write commands can be issued directly specifying just the absolute sector you are going to write without needing to wait for the other drive to find the same sector before starting the operation.
That topped out with the ridiculous access times, ensure you've got a performance demon in your desktop.

And just the icing on the cake: swapping file operations will be a lot faster than when using mechanical drives, because of the access times.

About that article @tom's hardware... well... what can I say... an ssd drive they show eating a lot less power at idel and load than the hdd being tested, ends up shortening battery life by 1 minute. Impressive. They must be using some kind of time warping, subspace distortion technology over there to get those results :D




Price point for business
By twhittet on 7/2/2008 6:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
I've been watching SSD's carefully, and they're finally at a price point that I can convince my company to use them. We have industrial machines with PC controllers that run very hot, and hard drives that fail constantly. I can't wait to finally try these out!




Wow
By FITCamaro on 7/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: Wow
By Tryek25 on 7/1/2008 9:36:23 AM , Rating: 2
We can now say we were around back in the day when SSDs used to be thousands =) Pricing is a lot lower than even a six months ago but it still seems like a big price tag compared to the usual magnetic storage.


RE: Wow
By aliasfox on 7/1/2008 9:45:30 AM , Rating: 3
Big price tag, yes, but it's come down to a point that's low enough where most people who really want SSD storage can afford to get it. At $400 more than magnetic storage for 120-odd GB, what's to say that there won't be a fair number of people buying a $1400 laptop instead of a $1000 laptop?

Personally, I'm just not sure what the limited write lifetime of flash memory means for a boot drive/daily use HD. I don't expect my laptop HDs to last more than 3 yrs of constant travel/use, but if this is can last twice that long, it would easily be in my consideration set (I keep my machines a long time).


RE: Wow
By therealnickdanger on 7/1/2008 9:59:21 AM , Rating: 5
What's funny is that I spent ~$500 on two 10,000RPM 36GB Raptors several years ago... so buying two 64GB units for ~$500 doesn't faze me one bit! Not only are they 2x larger, much quieter, but much, MUCH quicker!


RE: Wow
By 91TTZ on 7/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: Wow
By legoman666 on 7/1/2008 12:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
not the original 36gb raptors


RE: Wow
By therealnickdanger on 7/1/2008 1:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
Correct. The modern-day VelociRaptor is much quicker than the old 36GB Raptors. However, SSDs can hold their own very well against even the VelociRaptor.

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=561&type=expe...


RE: Wow
By FingerMeElmo87 on 7/1/2008 11:03:49 AM , Rating: 2
no kidding. the only thing that those SSDs dont have going for them is the VelociRaptor. they offer similar performance for $300 but they have 300GB. they make alittle more sence in the price/performance ratio compared to SSDs. but then again those SSDs can fit in laptops where as the VR cant since its a bit to thick (after you remove the heatsink). decisions decision


RE: Wow
By therealnickdanger on 7/1/2008 1:12:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
decisions decision

Decide to wait six more months... ;-)


RE: Wow
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2008 1:15:24 PM , Rating: 1
At 10,000 rpm it'd be drive suicide to put the Velociraptor in a laptop. It'd burn up.


RE: Wow
By Hare on 7/1/2008 2:00:31 PM , Rating: 2
It wouldn't fit into a laptop since it has a 3.5" casing. If you remove it, the actual 2.5" drive would still be too thick.

With a decent cooling solution, it wouldn't necessarily burn. It only uses 3W when idling and 6W when seeking.

Another interesting thing is people think that a 10 000rpm drive is loud but in fact the velociraptor is one of the quietest drives around.


RE: Wow
By leexgx on 7/1/2008 1:44:21 PM , Rating: 2
if you got 2 SSD drives (140MB/s / 90MB/s) thay will be faster then an VR as the access times are alot lower and you get constant speed all the time

when thay get to £100 mark (the good SSD) i get them my self


RE: Wow
By CyborgTMT on 7/4/2008 12:53:06 AM , Rating: 2
I completely agree. I threw down over grand for my 4 X 74G raptors back in the day. I might just pick up 3 of the 128s for a raid5.


RE: Wow
By AnnihilatorX on 7/1/2008 9:46:25 AM , Rating: 4
Well with level-wearing algorithms I do expect them to last as long as a conventional HDD.

For desktop users, I'd recommend using the SSD drive for housing the OS and programs; where moving your documents and data to another drive of traditional HDD preferably with redundancy, in this way the computer performance is maximized while keeping data relatively safe.

I can't stress enough for people that in Windows it is always preferable to move your My Document folder to another drive or even partition of the same drive. You can move it easily through Windows XP or Vista by using the properties dialogue. For when you need to format and reinstall Windows, you don't have to worry about data backup since your documents is on another partition or drive.


RE: Wow
By Polynikes on 7/1/2008 12:46:45 PM , Rating: 2
That's more or less what I do. Two 36GB Raptors in RAID 0 for the OS and programs, two other HDDs to store everything else.


RE: Wow
By Visual on 7/1/2008 9:49:55 AM , Rating: 2
You are worried about "livelyhood"?
http://www.google.com/search?q=1.5+million+hours+i...
I wouldn't worry, with a MTBF like that


RE: Wow
By Sivar on 7/1/2008 11:47:53 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you should make sure that you understand what MTBF actually is before quoting a Google search which spews large numbers like 171 years.

You'll have people believing that MTBF actually means a device is expected to live anywhere near that long.

http://faq.storagereview.com/tiki-index.php?page=M...


RE: Wow
By Reclaimer77 on 7/2/2008 10:26:53 AM , Rating: 2
Simple fact is using a figure of 50 gb per day write/overwrite cycle, an SSD drive will last about 30 to 35 years. Show me a 'Velociraptor that will do that lol.


RE: Wow
By ieskorp on 7/1/2008 9:54:47 AM , Rating: 2
They are available in Germany;

http://www.kmelektronik.de/main_site/?SiteType=Sho...

This is great development. I hav been waiting for them to become more affordable


RE: Wow
By Oroka on 7/1/2008 12:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
You dont need a SSD to store your anime porn, just for the OS and programs. Use a cheap-o platter based HDD for mass storage.

My lappy is getting one of these and my current HDD is becomming the secondary storage drive.


RE: Wow
By Locutus465 on 7/1/2008 1:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
Nice to see a price plummet with these drives, I just hope that quality standards don't fall with the drives... I've been wishing I could replace out my laptop HDD with an SSD but considering my machine cost me $650 including 1GB memory upgrade I couldn't exactly justify $1,000 for a 128GB drive (I think was the last price point I remember).

These are still too rich for my blood, but I'm very encouraged by this drop. It makes me hopeful that *MAYBE* with a black friday sale this year or next I could afford an SSD.


RE: Wow
By Screwballl on 7/1/2008 3:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
I still have a 512MB (yes MB) WD drive that still runs well today.. sure its a bit noisy but it still does its job and no data corruption. Since most of these SSD are still sitting in the 2.5" arena, their target is more for laptops which have a history of being dropped and damaging the platter based hard drives.
Sure they could release a 512GB 3.5" SSD but the price would probably run over $1000... let them take off in the 2.5" laptop market first and when the prices come down, THEN start building them in primary desktop systems as the OS drive. Leave the platter based drives for storage.


RE: Wow
By DeepBlue1975 on 7/1/2008 11:07:44 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, those are from another time... A time where they lasted a lot longer :D

Since we have 7200rpm drives, it's rare for a desktop hdd to last much longer than 4-5 years.
I myself try to get rid of them after 3 years because among the last drives I've had, most died before hitting the 5th year mark.


RE: Wow
By P4blo on 7/2/2008 11:27:30 AM , Rating: 1
Harsh down voteage... I have one thing to say about these cheapo SSD's

Benchies !!!!!!!? Plz


RE: Wow
By Spectator on 7/22/2008 1:11:16 PM , Rating: 2
Am i missing some logic here?

you get slow write speeds. but if you Raid 0 them you get exponential perf increase?..

So why do they not implement a raid 0 arrangement internally on the chips in the drive to increase speed natively?

ffs just stick 64gig/8 raid 0 chunks into a drive and give me 800mb sec read speeds please. lol

Spectator


"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference

Related Articles













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