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 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.


"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997

Related Articles
Joost Shuts Down Standalone Video Player
December 19, 2008, 7:58 AM













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