Print 60 comment(s) - last by DeepBlue1975.. on May 23 at 4:49 PM

Super Talent's new 32GB MasterDrive MX SSD is priced at a "reasonable" $299.
Super Talent goes on an SSD price-slashing spree.

Solid-state drives (SSDs) are seen as the next frontier in the area of storage technology for personal computers. SSDs are remarkably fast, generate less heat, make no noise, and are lighter than their HDD counterparts.

One factor that has kept SSDs from wide-spread adoption, however, has been the high price of entry. OCZ recently announced 32GB and 64GB SATA-II SSDs use single-level cell (SLC) NAND flash and are priced at $599 and $1,099 respectively. Likewise, Super Talent's new 256GB SATA is priced at a whopping $5,995.

Luckily for end-users, prices are starting to drop and Super Talent is looking to populate the lower-end of the market with a new lineup of SSDs. The company today announced new MasterDrive MX 30GB, 60GB, and 120GB SSDs -- incredibly, all are priced under $1,000. The drives retail for $299, $449, and $649 respectively.

All of the drives use a SATA-II interface and contain multi-level cell (MLC) NAND memory. The use of MLC memory means that these new "budget" drives can't hold a candle to SLC drives when it comes to write performance. However, all three drives manage to achieve read speeds of 120MB/sec and write speeds of 40MB/sec.

On a slightly higher performance plane -- and with a notable increase in pricing -- are the new MasterDrive DX 30GB and 60GB SSDs. Both use SLC memory and offer read speeds of 120MB/sec and write speeds of 70MB/sec -- they are priced at $699 and $1,299 respectively.

"These new SSDs are a rugged, lightning fast, low power storage alternative for mobile professionals and enthusiasts. With such overwhelming benefits, MasterDrive SSDs are sure to revolutionize mobile storage," said Joe James, Super Talent's Marketing Director.

The Super Talent MasterDrive MX SSDs are currently listed on Newegg's website and are in stock. The MasterDrive DX SSDs, however, are not currently available.

It remains to be seen if other SSD manufacturers will follow Super Talent’s lead with lower pricing across the board on their hardware, but it’s nice to see that the ball is finally rolling. Super Talent’s MasterDrive MX may leave a little to be desired in write performance, but the price tags should allow SSDs to reach a much larger audience.

Comments     Threshold

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

Still too much
By archcommus on 5/5/2008 8:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
Vista loads in under 30 seconds and even my most taxing games load levels in about the same time or not much more. For my desktop that doesn't move and just sits on my floor, I'll take 500 GB for $100 easily. Maybe in 3-4 years these SSDs will be more appealing. Really those speeds don't sound all THAT impressive, not for the price anyway.

RE: Still too much
By xsilver on 5/5/2008 9:39:45 PM , Rating: 1
For regular use, I dont see SSD's really coming to replace anything. Hybrid drives however could take off provided they match the price/storage ratio accordingly.

samsung has 128mb/256mb hybrid drives which I think are still too small but a hybrid drive with 4/8gb flash and 500gb HDD priced at a 10% premium to regular drives I think could do well.
Great software implementation could pre-define the OS/common apps stay on the flash.

RE: Still too much
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 5/6/2008 11:04:22 AM , Rating: 2
When memristors come on the market, we may wonder why we ever used a device as slow as an SSD, much less HDD.

RE: Still too much
By snipermav on 5/6/2008 2:05:27 PM , Rating: 3
I'm betting that's another ~20 years away before the technology is mature and affordable enough for consumer markets.

RE: Still too much
By Omega215D on 5/6/2008 12:59:39 PM , Rating: 2
At least there's always the WD VelociRaptor that is a more reasonable $1 USD per gig. Quite competitive with current SSDs I think.

RE: Still too much
By DeepBlue1975 on 5/6/2008 2:52:25 PM , Rating: 4
You people aren't get the point of SSD...
And nor does the article, for what matters...

The advantage of SSD from a performance standpoint is NOT sequential transfer rates as it is low access times, typically around 100 times better than normal hard drives.

What does that mean, that your games are going to load singificantly faster? No.

It means that if you have 5 apps open at a time and an archiving utility running in the background, disk accesses will become increasingly painful as your multitasking demands increase and as your system needs to use the swapping file more often.

In that kind of scenario an SSD will help.

If you're a "single task" kind of user, well, then an SSD is not and probably will never be better for you than a horrible obsolete thing with rotating plates and mechanical actuators (the long name for hard disk).

RE: Still too much
By mindless1 on 5/6/2008 7:09:55 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, the advantage IS soon to be sequential transfer rates, or hadn't you noticed that a typical consumer hard drive does NOT have 120MB/s across the entirety of it's platters like these do.

Low access times do not matter in multitasking like you suggest, any moreso than other disk intensive small IO scenarios.

It is wrong to think it's about the swapping or pagefile, that is easily enough handled by the several gigs of main system memory - nobody should ever be thinking about pagefile performance in the context of a system costly enough to have a several hundred dollar SSD but not enough main memory.

If you're a single task user, SSD has one very important benefit in that mechanical hard drives tend to die at a much higher rate within the viable life of the system installed within.

Wow, it seems you're wrong on practically every point, it's a wonder people rated you up to a 4.

RE: Still too much
By xsilver on 5/6/2008 7:56:04 PM , Rating: 2
I said loading the entire OS onto the SSD portion of the drive where the most common and frequent access is. It solves both problems of multitasking and fast transfer rates.
Therfore you will have the best of both worlds with large storage space as well as fast speeds.

What is more interesting to me is if you had a stand alone 4/8gb ssd running together with a 500gb hdd, what kind of penalties would occur as opposed to a hybrid drive?

RE: Still too much
By DeepBlue1975 on 5/7/2008 9:39:25 AM , Rating: 2
You said it yourself: "is soon to be transfer rates".

Modern mechanical drives are having STRs in excess of 100mb/s...

And low access times DO matter in multitasking. If it weren't so, why do you think that we are now using 7200rpm drives instead of 5400 ones?

What factor do you think makes a 10.000 rpm faster than your best 7200rpm drive? Only STR?

Do you know what rotational latency is, right?
You also know how a hard drive works, don't you?

Do you know what the principle behind "readyboost" in vista is for using a really slow STR USB drive to speed up a machine with a low quantity of system ram, and when I say slow I mean around 10mb/sec in comparison to around 70mb/sec and beyond for an hdd?

Please read some tests around, read why a stripe of disks (badly called raid 0, as it has no redundancy), which improves the STR drastically, does not improve real usage scenarios that much, unless your apps are mostly demanding of high STRs.

I think anand has a test in which they show how standard test figures don't get that much better with an SSD, but how heavy multitasking scenarios do.

And... Several gigs? How many gigs do you have in your rig?
how many instances of Adobe Photoshop, 3d studio, video converting tools and the likes can you run at the same time without making your system RAM choke?

Yeah, 4 gigs is enough to not swap if your only mulititasking involves browsing the net and reading a PDF document, but that's not what one would call "heavy multitasking".

And another more: why do you think newest drives started to implement such things as NCQ? to improve STR, or to help avoid random accesses to be more likely to get an STR scenario, which is the kind of operation an HDD can do better?

RE: Still too much
By mindless1 on 5/7/2008 12:08:47 PM , Rating: 2
My post was correct and no, modern mechanical drives don't sustain the same speed over their entire platter surface if they do even on the fastest part. Being able to peak at over 100Mb/s is not the same as having 120MB/s over their entirety.

Low access times matter in multitasking, but not particularly so which was the distinction trying to be made - it could be said of many other scenarios which invalidates the point of the statement.

Just because a heavy multitasking test benefits does not change that other tasks do as well, a test is not a distinction it is only one point of validation.

RE: Still too much
By DeepBlue1975 on 5/8/2008 1:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
Watch a disk test at anand's, in which SSDs almost exclusively hold the upper hand in multitasking tests and are about even on all of the standard, "single task scenario" ones.

RE: Still too much
By mindless1 on 5/14/2008 5:29:54 AM , Rating: 2
You still aren't getting the point, that I never wrote there wasn't any multitasking scenario where they wouldn't help but rather, it is wrong to claim that is their benefit as if it was some exceptional use.

Multitasking is NOT something that we need bother be concerned about. It's not a data access patern, whether more than one app instead of one is requiring IO is fairly irrelevant, a distraction from the issues.

RE: Still too much
By DeepBlue1975 on 5/23/2008 4:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't.
In fact it is so important that some years ago manufacturers came with things like native command queing for desktop drives, something that before was only reserved to server class scsi drives.

RE: Still too much
By onwisconsin on 5/5/2008 10:09:17 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, but I wouldn't mind having one in my laptop because it would be an overall improvement (noise, heat, power consumption, and resistance to dropping) over the 5400RPM one that came from the factory

RE: Still too much
By Souka on 5/6/2008 2:21:52 AM , Rating: 2
I saw the claims on "heat" and "power consumption" and had to make a comment.

I seem to recall a review on this very site showing that a 160GB 5400rpm drive had lower power consumption and therefore less "heat" compared to a SSD option.
(actually everything, but latency, the HD had the SSD beat)

Anyhow.... I'll be happy when SSD's hit the desktop market and take out the one of the noiser components in my PC.


RE: Still too much
By PlasmaBomb on 5/6/2008 8:20:20 AM , Rating: 4
Macbook air with HDD swapped for SSD (performance review) (power usage review)

MTRON 32GB SSD: Better in a Notebook?
The SSD wins - its power draw is 0.55W vs the 160Gb 7200 rpm Seagates 2.89 W, and its operating temp is 29/31°C idle/load vs the Seagates 33/37°C

SSD on the desktop

RE: Still too much
By porkpie on 5/6/2008 11:56:01 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I get a little tired of the idiots slamming SSDs simply because they can't afford them. Sure, the price is much higher now, but the drives ARE better. The question of whether the increased performance and battery life are worth the cost is up to each individual. I know plenty of 'road warriors' willing to pay thousands for a little extra battery life.

RE: Still too much
By mindless1 on 5/6/2008 7:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
Battery life differences are inconsequential in the context of one drive per an entire computer system - including laptops.

Durability and lifespan are much much more important, as well as performance. It's just troubling to see the new products having MLC flash when they're priced high enough that the justification isn't there just to reach the capacity. 2GB USB thumbdrives now cost $10, it wouldn't be too unreasonable to have a 32GB SSD for $160 and that would place them in the price range that many are willing to pay.

RE: Still too much
By AmazighQ on 5/6/2008 11:58:31 AM , Rating: 2
ssd are a waste of money on a desktop
really buy 2 velociraptor 300 gb put them in raid 0+1
and you have the 'cheapest'solution
so for desktop's ill will take more then a price drop to make people buy ssd

and no, fast boot time is useless when performances goes down in normal usage

RE: Still too much
By Crassus on 5/6/2008 12:21:18 PM , Rating: 3
So, you want to put 2 HDDs in RAID 0+1 ... HOW?! AFAIK you need a min of 4 drives for that...

As for SSDs-- the 30GB is certainly appealing for notebook on-the-go usage. Noiseless, less power draw, and shock resistant, and now in a price range that is not beyond good and evil. Since I tend to keep HDDs longer than other components (still using an original 32Gig Raptor), it's an appealing upgrade.

However, Newegg lists them as External drives - is that correct?!

RE: Still too much
By InternetGeek on 5/5/2008 10:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
Prices are starting to get 'there' though. Nor forking out for those yet, but we're almost there. Another price drop of this magnitude and I'd say I'm getting a SSD in about year and a half.

Does it make sense to have a SSD and a flash card to do readyboost?

RE: Still too much
By icrf on 5/5/2008 10:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on who's paying. I'm planning on convincing work that I need a new desktop sometime early next year and will definitely be getting a 64 GB SSD in it. I'm a programmer dealing with poo tons of tiny files all day long and would love some of that seek action.

Actually, I'd really like a compilation benchmark added to CPU and storage reviews. 6-8 years ago I swear I remember regularly seeing a Quake compilation timing. With as many people running open source distros, more people are compiling than ever before (or maybe not, if the masses have switched from gentoo to ubuntu). I use Visual Studio, so that's probably different enough from a linux GCC, but I have to believe it's closer than anything else.

RE: Still too much
By feelingshorter on 5/6/2008 1:11:28 AM , Rating: 2
I think SSD is more important in laptops than it is in desktops. On the desktop end, you can easily just use the WD raptor series. As for the notebooks, the advantage is having no moving parts and lower energy usage.

It is the cheapest thing on the market right now as far as i know. Some of the best notebooks based on battery life, size, and weight are ones with SSD drives but they usually cost in the ~3000 range like the lenovo x300.

The speed aren't that impressive but again, you can buy a velociraptor for cheaper. For notebooks, the 32 gig can replace those 5400 rpm hard drives and offer better performance in battery life and speeds probably (which are still used, the newest lenovo u110 uses a 5400 rpm drive for example).

RE: Still too much
By Reclaimer77 on 5/6/2008 1:36:05 AM , Rating: 2
Vista loads in under 30 seconds and even my most taxing games load levels in about the same time or not much more. For my desktop that doesn't move and just sits on my floor, I'll take 500 GB for $100 easily. Maybe in 3-4 years these SSDs will be more appealing. Really those speeds don't sound all THAT impressive, not for the price anyway.

Start loading down Vista with media, a half full hard drive, and a natural increase in services and registry junkification. Then come talk to us about how peppy it feels.

RE: Still too much
By Master Kenobi on 5/6/2008 7:24:36 AM , Rating: 2
Still peppy. With 1TB filled and another 1TB to go.

RE: Still too much
By therealnickdanger on 5/6/2008 7:56:44 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sitting on about 700GB of media currently, no problems here either - not even while streaming to multiple locations in the house at the same time. Vista is one kickass little OS. By little, I mean 14GB. LOL

RE: Still too much
By PlasmaBomb on 5/6/2008 8:21:52 AM , Rating: 2
What are you running 2 x 1TB drives in raid 0?

RE: Still too much
By michal1980 on 5/6/2008 7:51:24 AM , Rating: 2
my vista for some reason does take forever to load. (about 2 mins or so). I have a feeling its due to media sharing of my mp3's because the windows media player network process is just sucking up harddrive reads on boot.

but once loaded. I just went from 2gb ram to 4gb, I just crapped my pants. Everything pops up instantly. its freaky.
all that ready boost stuff works even better with all this room. Thinking of going all the way to 8gb ram now, to have vista preload games etc.

By KeithP on 5/5/2008 9:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't two, or more, of the slower drives be used in a RAID 0 array to increase write performance?


By Pandamonium on 5/5/2008 10:10:29 PM , Rating: 2
Might as well just buy the SLC-based drive if you're going to buy two of the cheaper ones.

By Clauzii on 5/5/2008 10:29:04 PM , Rating: 4
Then You don't consider that two of these cheaper ones also raises the Readspeed to almost the double ie. ~200 MB/s, which is pretty nice I think.

By therealnickdanger on 5/5/2008 11:44:45 PM , Rating: 2
The part about SSDs that is most appealing to me is the day-to-day daily operations that occur nearly instantaneously due to the extreme access times and ops/sec.

By PlasmaBomb on 5/6/2008 8:29:39 AM , Rating: 2
In my real world usage of the machine, the SSD was just faster

Quote from our beloved Anand Lal Shimpi (refering to macbook air).

Waiting for Intel 's SSD
By iwod on 5/5/2008 9:54:40 PM , Rating: 2
Intel promised that they will have a SSD Driver double the current fastest SSD speed...

RE: Waiting for Intel 's SSD
By Pirks on 5/5/2008 10:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
Knowing Intel, the price is NOT going to be the double, unfortunately

RE: Waiting for Intel 's SSD
By someguy123 on 5/6/2008 12:48:13 AM , Rating: 2
what? I don't understand this comment. I know intel's high end has always been massively overpriced, but so has anything else considered "high end". if they release a very fast SSD hard drive, i'm sure if they have good competition they'd slash prices aggressively like they did with the c2duo.

RE: Waiting for Intel 's SSD
By teldar on 5/6/2008 1:19:46 AM , Rating: 2
Historically, that's not really intel's thing. Not sure how old you are, but when I was in college, you could plan on spending $3k for a DECENT computer at the time. There wasn't any such thing as a process which cost less than a few hundred dollars and all the higher end ones were a thousand. I don't mean EE's or anything, I just mean something that was 20% up the speed grade.
They rake people over the coals on pricing for as long as they can and hold out for a little longer to see how much more they can get.

I would say they would come out with something half again as nice and charge 4x the amount for it, or more.


By Clauzii on 5/5/2008 10:10:52 PM , Rating: 2
This must be it:

I'll get one :)

By Warren21 on 5/5/2008 11:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
My '96 IBM Aptiva had a 3.1 GB HDD, 32MB of RAM, 4MB ATI Rage 3D and a Pentium MMX 200MHz. Needless to say it was just good enough to run Diablo II.

By Chapbass on 5/6/2008 3:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
but was it good enough to not wipe on duriel x 1000 until your computer can cache everything?

hardcore mode was so fun back then :\

Raid o - 9 SSD
By kandalf on 5/5/2008 11:01:43 PM , Rating: 3
Check this out.A review with a RAID O with 9 Mtron SSD's. The performance is amazing.

RE: Raid o - 9 SSD
By Darkefire on 5/5/2008 11:27:37 PM , Rating: 2
Amazing indeed. Looks like we're finally getting around to erasing that pesky hard drive bottleneck. That said, right now I think I'd rather wait the extra 25 seconds for my game to load and spend the $7,000 on something more useful. Like maybe a car, or a year's worth of food.

RE: Raid o - 9 SSD
By michal1980 on 5/6/2008 12:27:53 PM , Rating: 1
or actually pay for games unlike some people here, who think its ok to pay 4 grand for a pc. But 50 for a game, now your getting ripped off, and it might suck.

Ananad, we need your benches
By Pirks on 5/5/2008 8:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
Check out these bad boys A.S.A.P.


RE: Ananad, we need your benches
By Nihility on 5/6/2008 12:14:22 AM , Rating: 2
You can already speculate what the performance will be like by previous reviews. High IOPS, super slow write speed. Multitasking will improve, sequential reads will improve slightly, sequential writes will SUCK.

These aren't high performance mtron drives. They are cheap because they are built with cheap parts.
Power consumption might be slightly lower, heat will probably be the same, weight might be lower and resistance to impact should be much higher.

I Wonder
By FredEx on 5/5/2008 11:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
I've been reading so much stuff about new tech discoveries that I'm thinking that just maybe before the killer SSD's get down in price to where I would buy one and up in size to replace HD's, something else better is going to come along. It may not be far off. Unless somebody figures out how to get the SSD's cost down much faster and density way up.

RE: I Wonder
By Ringold on 5/5/2008 11:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
You pretty much described what has always happened for every component. Why buy a 45nm CPU today when 32nm is right around the corner? Why buy a G35 chipset Intel board today when G45 or whatever is right around the corner? Oh, and these nvidia cards, they're good, but hang in there another year, and the next ones will blow 'em out of the water. Etc. Etc. Etc. Until either the end of time -- or capitalism, one or the other.

The SLC seems overpriced
By PrinceGaz on 5/6/2008 12:22:42 AM , Rating: 2
Luckily for end-users, prices are starting to drop and Super Talent is looking to populate the lower-end of the market with a new lineup of SSDs. The company today announced new MasterDrive MX 30GB, 60GB, and 120GB SSDs -- incredibly, all are priced under $1,000. The drives retail for $299, $449, and $649 respectively.

All of the drives use a SATA-II interface and contain multi-level cell (MLC) NAND memory. The use of MLC memory means that these new "budget" drives can't hold a candle to SLC drives when it comes to write performance. However, all three drives manage to achieve read speeds of 120MB/sec and write speeds of 40MB/sec.

On a slightly higher performance plane -- and with a notable increase in pricing -- are the new MasterDrive DX 30GB and 60GB SSDs. Both use SLC memory and offer read speeds of 120MB/sec and write speeds of 70MB/sec -- they are priced at $699 and $1,299 respectively.

So both the MLC and SLC drives have equal read speeds of about 120MB/sec, and write-speeds of 40MB and 70MB respectively. Given that read-speeds are much more important in almost every situation, and that a write-speed of 40MB/sec is usually more than enough for any typical usage, I fail to see why anyone would go with the SLC drives, unless they are less error-prone.

30GB: MLC $299, SLC $699
60GB: MLC $449, SLC $1299
120GB: MLC $649, SLC *N/A*

A higher write-speed hardly justifies those price differences.

RE: The SLC seems overpriced
By Kaldskryke on 5/6/2008 12:35:27 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, SLC is less error prone. When flash degrades and becomes a little less consistent, having a greater space between digital high and low makes a big difference in tolerance.

SLC isn't overpriced, it's actually a lot less complex than MLC. It's just that having multiple levels per cell more than justifies the addition cost of MLC on a $/GB ratio. However write speeds and endurance suffer. For most users, however, neither are much of an issue at all - day to day desktop usage isn't particularly write-heavy. Thus, MLC is the best solution for consumer-grade drives.

SLC drives are also usually coupled with controllers that play well with RAID setups.

By kontorotsui on 5/6/2008 2:52:31 AM , Rating: 2
What about flash degradation? Beside a wear leveling algorithm, what has been done to make these drives last?
The price is still prohibitive, mostly, and if by using it every day as I do, it lasts a couple of years then starts degrading, it's pretty much a rip-off.

Suppose the user keeps his desktop on almost always (my uptime is half an year right now!), the OS is constantly writing around to update logs and such. How long current SSDs will last? O __ o

RE: Degradation?
By Quiescent on 5/6/2008 10:07:21 AM , Rating: 2
I'll let you know if the flash SSD on my Eee degrades within 2 years. Otherwise, I doubt it. It's just as vulnerable to degrading as harddrives are. However, SSDs use this nice technology that swaps between less used parts and more used parts, as well as having more space on the SSDs to replace any bad blocks. So most likely an SSD would last longer than a harddrive.

SSD options
By ChiefsLead on 5/6/2008 8:32:31 AM , Rating: 2
OK, I have a Dell Latitude D620 with a 7200RPM drive that gets between a 32.2 and a 40.7 MB/sec transfer rate and 15.0 ms Access Time according to HD Tune. So these drives would be an improvement.

But how about this idea, I've seen some express cards coming out that are in the 30 MB/sec range, but have the 1 ms Access Time. If these were used for the swap file and maybe the most often used programs installed to this drive, you would probably see a performace boost. The advantage to this is that you would not have to reinstall your OS and programs or find/buy the cabeling to ghost the drive, and it would be a little cheaper than a regular SSD. So this would be a temporary solution until the price per GB becomes reasonable. I just have not seen too many bench marks for express cards. Have any of you guys found a good ExpressCard SSD or seen any bench marks posted worth looking at?

RE: SSD options
By RU482 on 5/6/2008 2:23:18 PM , Rating: 2
I just got the spec sheets on the MLC and SLC drives.

MLC Endurance Spec
Read Unlimited
8GB 4.38 yrs @50GB write-erase/day
15GB 8.22 yrs @ 50GB write-erase/day
30GB 16.44 yrs @ 50GB write-erase/day
60GB 32.88 yrs @ 50GB write-erase/day
120GB 65.75 yrs @ 50GB write-erase/day

SLC Endurance Spec
Read Unlimited
15GB 82.19 yrs @ 50GB write-erase/day
30GB 164.38 yrs @ 50GB write-erase/day
60GB 328.77 yrs @ 50GB write-erase/day

My question is, why the funny capacity sizes? Aren;t SSDs typically in increments of 8GB (8-16-32-64-128). I wonder if they have a bit of capacity set aside for when part of the drive goes bad (similar to how bad sectors are "repaired" on a spinning drive)

By Etern205 on 5/6/2008 9:30:33 AM , Rating: 2
Not all SSD will perform the same.
As of now we most of us know the Mtron is the fastest SSD drive, but does this mean the SuperTalent drive will have the same type of performance since it's a SSD also? Maybe, Maybe not.

If one type of SSD is faster than the Raptor it does not mean all of them will have the same type of performance!

RE: Performance?
By Kaldskryke on 5/6/2008 12:43:51 PM , Rating: 2
It could depend on what aspect of performance you're looking at. Flash access times are very quick, so most SSDs - even MLC - will be faster than a Raptor in terms of highly-random reads. However sustained read speeds will be a fairly close tie. The combination is that for reads in general, both the Mtron and the super talent SSDs are better.

However, flash write speed is pretty dismal. While the Mtron's 100MB/s writes are almost as good a raptor, that's only for sequential writes. Since NAND flash can't do bit-wise writing, it has to erase whole blocks in order to change a single bit. This means that small random writes perform dismally on all SSDs. The super talent drive is likely even worse.

Things get a little more complicated when you consider drive arrays. The Mtron's professional drives scale fantastically in RAID0, but the MOBI line doesn't fare well at all. I imagine the supertalent consumer drives will be similar.

I'm Pretty Excited
By Quiescent on 5/6/2008 9:33:32 AM , Rating: 2
Currently, with the prices of SSDs, I just plan on getting one for just putting the OS on. The new Eee 900 loads XP in 5 secs, which is definitely better over the 15-30 sec load speed over the Eee 70x. For my poor desktop, since I haven't reformatted in 2 years, I haven't been able to defrag the total harddrive because I have so little space, this would be great. On my Eee 4G Surf, I have 400mb of space left and have no problems with the slow down on loading things. I don't need to defrag the SSD, and having little space left doesn't affect any load times.

I could get a 12GB or 20GB SSD to put the OS on and other programs and then use a traditional SATA 500GB 32MB cache harddrive for other things.

And when prices are cheap on SSD, I will probably switch over completely.

RE: I'm Pretty Excited
By Quiescent on 5/6/2008 9:44:50 AM , Rating: 2
And just to add to the idea, SSD would be perfect for if you were to make your own computer system for your car. It isn't going to get messed up by bumps, and it won't suck the life out of your car's battery if you put it in standby/hibernate. (I took the battery out of my Eee when I had to dissemble it to remove yogurt from the inside (Accident, it survived!) and a week later, I put the battery back in, and it came out of standby like nothing ever happened)

Still a bit expensive
By dickeywang on 5/6/2008 3:02:48 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I doubt one can do any serious works with a single 32GB SSD, Vista with some common softwares can easily eats up 20GB, and you have save some space for swap file and hibernate file, so there isn't much space. Even 64GB is a little bit too small (at least for me). $599 for 128GB sounds like a huge price cut, but it still more expensive than half of the laptop (if not the entire laptop) that most people are using. I think $6/GB is still too much for mainstream consumers, until the price drops to somewhere around $1-$1.5/GB, I am going to stick with my HDD.

By JonnyDough on 5/6/2008 6:15:24 AM , Rating: 2
JUST GIVE ME A FAST 10GB SSD and NLite for under $100. That's all I want!

By ChiefsLead on 5/7/2008 9:16:19 AM , Rating: 2
Great specs, basically, those SSDs are pretty reliable. But what about a good express card? Does anyone have any experience with them? What about bench marks? I would really like to get a good express card to hold me over until the SSDs become affordable.

"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki