backtop


Print 51 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Jul 28 at 9:43 PM

SSD is for notebook and desktop users

SanDisk has unveiled a new SSD today called the Ultra that is now shipping to retailers.

The Ultra SSD is sized to work in a notebook or a desktop computer and is designed for a drop-in upgrade to a machine for users. The SSD reads up to 280MB/s sequentially and up to 270MB/s sequential writes are supported. 
The drive has a mean time between failure rating of up to a million hours.

"Replacing a computer's hard disk drive with the SanDisk Ultra SSD is more cost effective than buying a new PC," said Kent Perry, director, product marketing, SanDisk. "Our new SSD delivers greater speed and reliability than a hard disk drive at an affordable price."

The SSD is offered in three capacities with a 60GB for $129.99, 120GB for $219.99, and a 240GB for $449.99. All three capacities are available right now in the U.S. and can be purchased from Newegg and other retailers.



Comments     Threshold


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

Cost
By MozeeToby on 7/26/2011 1:13:44 PM , Rating: 3
Is there anyone out there working to bring the previous generation SSDs to market at a more reasonable cost? I mean, honestly, my 3 year old Intel SSD is still an order of magnitude faster than standard notebook drive. If I could get one just like it for half the price I paid (for my second laptop) I'd be all over it.

Instead we get incremental speed improvements when they could grow the user base much more significantly by reducing price and increasing capacity.




RE: Cost
By fleshconsumed on 7/26/2011 1:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
And that is precisely why I will be reusing my Intel G2 whenever I upgrade my PC.


RE: Cost
By Flunk on 7/26/2011 1:23:37 PM , Rating: 2
These are already bargain basement SSDs. 280MB/s is about half of what the high end ones can manage. The issue with this is that the memory is what's expensive for SSDs so the older ones are not significantly less expensive to make than the faster ones.


RE: Cost
By AnonCoward on 7/26/2011 1:34:52 PM , Rating: 4
Sir,

This old HDD is not bargain basement. It is more expensive than what current gen SSD's go for.


RE: Cost
By Mitch101 on 7/26/2011 2:05:30 PM , Rating: 2
Its the reliability that worries me. Ive almost bought a few times but have been scared off by high failure rates. Everyone I know with an SSD has had them die one person is on his third and he does the swapfile in memory and no defrags on the SSD.

These should be more reliable than platter hard drive because of the lack of moving parts.


RE: Cost
By AnonCoward on 7/26/2011 2:24:55 PM , Rating: 3
I own 5. (2) Intel g2, (1) SF 1st gen, (2) m4. Still no issues.


RE: Cost
By therealnickdanger on 7/26/2011 4:15:59 PM , Rating: 3
So what you admit is that your oldest SSD is only 2 years old. Most people use conventional HDDs much longer than that. I have HDDs from at least 4 years ago that are still spinning...

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge SSD advocate myself and own several, also with no issues. But let's not confuse anecdotal evidence with facts. The truth is that if after 5 years all these SSDs floating around are still in use, then we'll know how reliable they really are.

I'm guessing that all of my current SSDs will still work fine as will all of yours, but I think by then we'll have moved on to <$1/GB SATA4 SSDs that do 1Gbps or something. The only reliability issue that concerns me about current SSDs is that I won't want to use it 5 years from now due to greater technologies.


RE: Cost
By Reclaimer77 on 7/26/2011 4:38:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The only reliability issue that concerns me about current SSDs is that I won't want to use it 5 years from now due to greater technologies


That doesn't make any sense. The slowest SSD today will STILL be superior in random read/write in five years than any HDD that will come out in that span. Sequential speeds will have improved, yes, but those aren't as important to the "feel" of the OS drive as randoms.

quote:
So what you admit is that your oldest SSD is only 2 years old. Most people use conventional HDDs much longer than that. I have HDDs from at least 4 years ago that are still spinning...


Well excuse us for being early adopters! If everyone had your attitude, SSD's would flop because nobody would buy them until everyone had a 5+ year old one still working. Come on guy :)


RE: Cost
By B3an on 7/26/2011 7:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That doesn't make any sense. The slowest SSD today will STILL be superior in random read/write in five years than any HDD that will come out in that span. Sequential speeds will have improved, yes, but those aren't as important to the "feel" of the OS drive as randoms.

This just in... not everyone has the same needs.
Not everyone just browses the net all day long.
Computing performance needs increase over time.
And being faster than a ridiculously slow HDD isn't saying much.


RE: Cost
By someguy123 on 7/26/2011 9:43:15 PM , Rating: 2
...it is saying much when it's the mainstream alternative. computing performance definitely needs to increase but the bottleneck mechanical HDDs have on current systems can be massive. if you're in need of better computational speeds, you'd likely also be in need of a storage format that offers better I/O, unless you're just playing video games.


RE: Cost
By MozeeToby on 7/26/2011 6:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
As a general rule SSD is going to last longer in a laptop than a platter drive will (because of the abuse they take). In a desktop that probably isn't the case, but then, in a desktop you'd probably be better off with a 2 drive RAIDed 7200 rpm setup with a ton more capacity and a similar price.


RE: Cost
By Reclaimer77 on 7/26/2011 4:09:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Everyone I know with an SSD has had them die one person is on his third


What, I'm calling bull on that.

quote:
no defrags on the SSD


Uhh I should certainly hope nobody "you know" is defragging their SSD...


RE: Cost
By Mitch101 on 7/26/2011 5:28:54 PM , Rating: 1
Newegg reviews
25% 1 Eggs
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

26% 1 Eggs
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

57% 1 Eggs
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

Read the reviews too some talk about problems with the sandforce chipset. Im especially interested in the reviews that show up after 6 months of use.

If you know me I think reviews of products have a major flaw in that they dont review reliability of a product 6 months to a year or re-review after driver maturity. How many companies promise the world and 6 months later leave you hanging or have revised the product because of issues yet the review gives them awards because they tested the product for 3 hours?


RE: Cost
By Reclaimer77 on 7/26/2011 5:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
Sandforce controllers are old news. But they did not all "fail", they just had horrible write issues and what not. Most SSD controller issues do get fixed via firmware updates however.

Let's not sit here and pretend there weren't batches and models of HDD's that didn't have terrible reliability problems. Remember IBM drives back in the day? So using one line of OCZ drives with a bad controller doesn't make an argument against ALL SSD's.


RE: Cost
By Mitch101 on 7/26/2011 5:48:07 PM , Rating: 1
The SandForce 2281 controller is one of the fastest out there and look at the review comments.

Reviewed on 6/23/2011 4:35:00 AM
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4341/ocz-vertex-3-ma...
These drives 120GB are now competitive with both Intel's SSD 510 and the 240GB Vertex 3. For desktop users looking for the best absolute performance at the 120GB price point, these are the SF-2281 drives you've been looking for.

23% 1 Egg Vertex 3
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

15% 1 Egg Vertex 3
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

I appreciate you early adopters and Im dying to get one but Im going to hold out a little longer for better reliability. It doesn't help that all my friends have had theirs die. It will get better and Corsair seems to have better reliability but Im just going to wait a little longer.


RE: Cost
By Reclaimer77 on 7/26/2011 5:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
You don't get it though, pointing out one controller isn't the same as you saying "all SSD's go bad". This is not an inherent problem with SSD technology, but a bad controller from ONE SSD provider. If the NAND flash was failing prematurely, your argument would have more bite to it.

Besides we both use Intel's, which seems to be king of SSD reliability. OCZ and others post good numbers, but I can live with slightly less sequential write speeds for the increased stability that Intel Gen2's have given me.


RE: Cost
By Reclaimer77 on 7/26/2011 6:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
Here since you use Newegg as your basis, check this out.

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

Pretty much every Intel SSD has 5 out of 5 Eggs.

quote:
Im dying to get one


Go for it!! :D


RE: Cost
By Mitch101 on 7/26/2011 9:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
None of them seem to come close to the sandforce performance 500MB/s but that might explain the high failure rate. Crucial seems to have a high reliability rating.

I have faith in it Im just going to give it a while longer to get a few more bugs worked out. My budget is $200.00 for 120gig with high reliability 95% 4-5 stars.


RE: Cost
By damage75 on 7/27/2011 8:22:14 AM , Rating: 2
Patriot Wildfire. Five reviews (it's new), all *5* stars.
They claim to have solved the instability issues that were affecting SF 22xx controllers.

Scanning the 'net, I see zero issues.


RE: Cost
By Flunk on 7/27/2011 8:56:54 AM , Rating: 4
That's not correct at all, and I quote

quote:
The SSD reads up to 280MB/s sequentially and up to 270MB/s sequential writes are supported.


The OCZ Agility 3 (a current gen mid-range SSD) 525MB/s Read and 500MB/s Write, making this a bottom of the line bargain drive if not a last-gen product masquerading as a new one.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4346/ocz-agility-3-2...


RE: Cost
By MrTeal on 7/26/2011 2:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
Not really.

If you break down the cost of an SSD, you could divide it into 4 broad categories.
1) NAND
2) Controller
3) Case, PCB, other components
4) Labour, overhead, other manufacturing, distribution and advertising costs.

Using a previous generation design might save you on #2, and maybe a little on 3 and 4. The majority of the cost of a SSD is in the NAND though. If you want a 240GB drive you have to buy 240GB of flash regardless of the design (ignoring spare area), and if that swamps the other costs then there's not a lot of benefit to using the old design.


RE: Cost
By bug77 on 7/26/2011 2:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
TBH, the new 20ish nm process was supposed to make the NAND cheaper. But reliability issues pushed the cost back up, so the new generation costs as much as the old one.


RE: Cost
By Reclaimer77 on 7/26/2011 4:12:31 PM , Rating: 2
I think volume sales is what's going to make SSD's cheaper. Just like system RAM. When DDR3 came out it was really expensive because it wasn't as easy to manufacture as DDR2 because of production reasons. The more SSD's get mainstreamed, the cheaper they will become.


RE: Cost
By bah12 on 7/26/2011 4:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
But his point was that we have moved up a generation. So just as DDR3 was more expensive than DDR2, this generations SSD should be more expensive that last gen.

However as others have stated it is not the same as DDR2 v DDR3 as NAND is all about die size. So the market actually behaves the opposite, the drives get cheaper to produce each generation NOT more expensive. Hence why the last gen SSD is not a bargin like DDR2 was when DDR3 came out.

I tend to hope that with higher demand this will change, but as the market is currently behaving, your cost/GB will usually be equal if not lower with the newer tech. Certainly strange for our industry.

Take a look at newegg and you will see the last intel x25 120G they had in stock was $230, compared to the 320 @ $220.

The other factor to consider is that once a new gen is released these companies just drop production on the old one. Unlike the DDR example there simply is no market that "requires" the old gen. Then new gen drives will work perfectly fine as a replacement. Therefore barring the small window of stock they really aren't sold at the same time, and it wouldn't make sense for Intel to make a lower margin drive since there is no market that requires them to do so (unlike a few hundred thousand DDR2 boards that won't run with DDR3).


RE: Cost
By Reclaimer77 on 7/26/2011 4:49:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However as others have stated it is not the same as DDR2 v DDR3 as NAND is all about die size. So the market actually behaves the opposite, the drives get cheaper to produce each generation NOT more expensive. Hence why the last gen SSD is not a bargin like DDR2 was when DDR3 came out.


Well yes but that's because of market forces. As demand causes production to ramp up, your margins from each unit can be lower. The more mainstream and less niche SSD's become, the better for everyone because it lowers prices.

But yes, I completely agree that die size is a big factor. And that also my DDR comparison was a bit wonky and not direct enough.

Competition also plays a big part in lowering prices. There's still only a handful of companies making HDD's. There are dozens of companies releasing SSD's, some we've never heard of before.


RE: Cost
By bug77 on 7/27/2011 3:27:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well yes but that's because of market forces. As demand causes production to ramp up, your margins from each unit can be lower. The more mainstream and less niche SSD's become, the better for everyone because it lowers prices.


You do realize that Flash is everywhere. From phones, to digital cameras, thumb drives, photo frames, MP3 players, you name it. So I'd say the production is pretty ramped up by now. Don't expect cost savings in this area.


RE: Cost
By Kurz on 7/27/2011 10:11:35 AM , Rating: 2
They are all different designs, form factors, and performance. Class 10 Flash is much more expensive than Class 2 for the physical memory.

Though since most people get around just fine with class 2 so thats where the market is right now. If everyone were to decide that Class 2 flash isnt enough they'll all move up to class 10 they'll have to ramp up production of Class 10 and deminish class 2. Then it'll be class 2 that'll be more expensive than Class 10. We saw this happen with the Ram Market.


RE: Cost
By bug77 on 7/26/2011 4:56:36 PM , Rating: 2
It's not that. It's more like CPUs. The finer the process, the more transistors you can fit on a wafer. That's where price reductions were supposed to be coming from.


RE: Cost
By murray13 on 7/26/2011 5:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
The REAL problem with flash memory still being expensive is demand. There is more demand than the manufactures can produce. All mobile devices use flash. There were 1.6 Billion phone sales in 2010. That doesn't take into account tablets, mp3 players, etc.

That is where the bulk of the flash being produced is going.


RE: Cost
By Googer on 7/27/2011 2:33:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you break down the cost of an SSD, you could divide it into 4 broad categories. 1) NAND 2) Controller 3) Case, PCB, other components 4) Labour, overhead, other manufacturing, distribution and advertising costs.


You left out profit for the manufacturer (factory in china), middleman (ocz), and retailer (newegg).


RE: Cost
By priusone on 7/26/2011 11:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
I feel your pain. With my laptop, I purchased a 60GB SSD for around $120 and then picked up a laptop DVD drive/HDD conversion kit for $35. For $25, I could pick up a USB 2.0 adapter for my laptops DVD drive for the off occasion that I may use it.

Sure, all in all it cost $155, but the speed boot without crying about lost capacity is pretty awesome.


RE: Cost
By surt on 7/27/2011 12:37:47 PM , Rating: 2
There's nothing they can do, really. The problem is that 95% of the cost is in the flash, which they all have to buy from the same 8 suppliers. There's no magic way to bring the cost of that down except process improvements and more factories, and the 8 are all within a couple of months of being on the same schedule there.


Nice try
By bug77 on 7/26/2011 2:09:31 PM , Rating: 4
Nice try about "replacing" the HDD, but if you're going for SSD, you're not replacing anything. You're just adding a faster boot drive that can't store all the data you have. So you still get to keep the old HDD.




RE: Nice try
By AnonCoward on 7/26/2011 2:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
You'll still have your old platter to store media on. Just put your boot and apps on the SSD. It will make an old computer feel MUCH faster.


RE: Nice try
By bug77 on 7/26/2011 3:57:06 PM , Rating: 2
If I wasn't clear enough: the SSD is NOT replacing anything. It's another (very expensive) component to add to your PC.

Me, I have 100GB of stuff on my C drive, with games and projects stored on D and E. If I were to go for SSD, I'd need a 256GB drive. That's $500. So I'll pass for a while.


RE: Nice try
By Reclaimer77 on 7/26/2011 4:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
If I can fit Windows 7, World of Warcraft, and Eve Online as well as assorted apps on my 80gig Intel then I think you can make due with an SSD and just use your current C drive for other stuff. Not EVERYTHING has to go on the SSD, you know.

You really don't know what you're missing man. I'm telling ya, you have to live it to love it.


RE: Nice try
By mindless1 on 7/26/2011 10:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
^ That's because you haven't yet gone to a client-server setup. Most things like documents, projects, media, don't need to be stored separately on every single client system. Games are an exception but most people do not play over a dozen largish games at the same time so they don't really need dozens of GB of rapidly accessed space on a client HDD... especially these days, with main system memory so cheap you're able to cache all the game files so even loads over GbE become more tolerable.


RE: Nice try
By bug77 on 7/27/2011 3:23:55 AM , Rating: 2
No it's because I build my PC around my needs, not the other way around.


RE: Nice try
By mindless1 on 7/27/2011 3:28:21 AM , Rating: 2
Then I suppose you have few or only one PC.

The rest of us, wouldn't even imagine having a data store on a vulnerable windows PC client system.

That's just DUMB.


RE: Nice try
By bug77 on 7/27/2011 5:30:55 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed it is. It only worked for me for almost 20 years.

But we re talking about SSDs. So you're saying I should get a file server with traditional HDDs and then install SSDs on everything else?


RE: Nice try
By mindless1 on 7/28/2011 9:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'm suggesting that is best, yes. Best because then all your computing devices have central access, because you have central backup capability, less risk without insecure apps running (like on a windows client PC), and it reduces the storage needs of the client systems enough that it makes SSDS viable /if/ you want to use them.


RE: Nice try
By Strunf on 7/27/2011 8:02:38 AM , Rating: 2
"The rest of us"? I don't see why you try to single him out, it's a fact most people store their stuff locally and it's completely dumb to try to put everything on the "cloud" too. A properly made local solution will be much faster and nearly as safe as anything you can find on the web.


RE: Nice try
By mindless1 on 7/28/2011 9:39:13 PM , Rating: 2
We on DT aren't most people, and I was referring to network storage NOT a web/cloud.


Question about SSD
By cjohnson2136 on 7/26/2011 4:34:10 PM , Rating: 2
Ok I have not looked into SSD cause of price but had a question about them. Do the ports for SSD differ from HDD. For example if I had a HDD in my laptop could I simple take that out and put a SSD in or is the port different?




RE: Question about SSD
By TerranMagistrate on 7/26/2011 4:54:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the interface is the same as all modern HDDs (SATA II).


RE: Question about SSD
By Reclaimer77 on 7/26/2011 5:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
Well be careful, cause there is "mini SATA" for laptops now that some SSD form factors use.


RE: Question about SSD
By RU482 on 7/26/2011 5:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
not mini SATA.
there is microSATA, which is a 1.8" drive size, and
mSATA, which is a form factor of a miniPCIe card

mSATA seems to be replacing the niche that the 1.8" drives filled.


Most misleading advertising ever for an SSD
By Donovan on 7/26/2011 6:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
From the press release:
quote:
...up to 280 megabyte per second (MB/sec) sequential read and 270 MB/sec sequential write speeds...up to 3 Gb/s random speeds...
The sequential numbers appear to be best-case sustained rates, but to then quote the SATA burst rate and call it the "random" performance is seriously misleading.

Personally, I don't pay much attention to any SSD that doesn't quote the random reads/writes; there are just too many that aren't much more than a glorified Compact Flash card. Given that this SSD is from Sandisk, it might even be literally true!




By mindless1 on 7/26/2011 10:14:58 PM , Rating: 2
^ I take it you haven't tried to run a modern full featured OS from a compact flash card. Everything better than the first (and arguably 2nd) generation jMicron controllers were leaps about bounds better than the fastest CF cards thanks to caching and random access specs.


Meh
By rburnham on 7/26/2011 5:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
These drives are not terrible, but at those speeds, there is nothing "ultra" about them, at least when compared to recent SSDs.




OCZ still has it beat,
By AMDftw on 7/27/2011 7:39:47 AM , Rating: 2
You can still pick up a Agility 2 cheaper. Last week, Newegg had them for 99.99 plus 10 MIR. (60Gb vers) I bought my 2 from microcenter and payed 100 bucks for them each. I also picked up 2 120GB ver for 150 there as well. It may still be older technology but still gets the work done. I picked them up 2/3 yrs ago. Run perfect and fast for my gaming rig.




"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes











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