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

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.


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

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