backtop


Print 38 comment(s) - last by mckirkus.. on May 12 at 3:15 PM

Pricing cuts will spur greater SSD adoption

Intel is lowering prices on several of its SSDs in a response to increased competition in the burgeoning SSD market. The world's largest semiconductor company makes SSDs using NAND flash produced by IM Flash Technologies, an Intel joint venture with Micron Technologies.

The X25-M series of mainstream 2.5-inch SSDs, which use Multi-Level Cell flash, is the target of the price cuts. The 160GB model will receive a $100 price cut off the MSRP, while the 80GB model will drop $50 in price. However, the street prices are much lower, as retailers react to demand for the popular Vertex series of SSDs produced by OCZ Technology.

Increased production and competition has forced a dramatic drop in prices. Intel launched its 160GB X25-M drive for $945 just four short months ago. Today, it is available for two-thirds of its original price, a savings of over $300. The price for the 80GB model has been cut almost in half since its launch.

Intel will also be making available more 80GB and 160GB SSDs in the 1.8-inch form factor. The retail supply of the X18-M series has been limited since its launch. These drives are used mostly in netbooks and smaller laptops which are space constrained.

Meanwhile, the X25-E series targeted at the enterprise server market will also soon face pricing and capacity pressure from OCZ and Super Talent.

Super Talent will soon be shipping SLC-based SSDs with up to 256GB of storage, which OCZ will counter with their Vertex EX series targeting the enterprise server and tiered storage markets.

Intel will fight back in this lucrative market, with designs for a 128GB SLC drive and a 320GB SSD using 34nm MLC NAND chips. They are expected to be released later in 2009.

 

Model

December 2008

February 2009

April 2009

 X25-M 80GB

 $595

 $390

$320 

 X25-M 160GB

 $945

 $765 

$630

X18-M 80GB

NA

NA

$340

 X25-E 32GB

 $575

 $415

$390 

 X25-E 64GB

 NA

 $795 

$795




Comments     Threshold


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

RE: RAM drive
By Pirks on 4/28/2009 7:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
No need to cache RAM drive, OS should be configured not to cache it -> write through and no read cache either.

More system RAM is impossible due to slot amount limitations - most mobos have just 4 slots which allow for 4GB RAMdrive at most (+4GB for OS itself), this is joke and useless. You can grow memory to 16GB if you use _ULTRA_ expensive 4GB sticks but what's the point when we talk the best bang for buck kind of solution?

I was discussing 16 slot solution which makes really large and hence useful RAMdrives possible. Less that 16 slots -> useless, because with Vista and apps/games anything less than 32 gigs for a boot/app partition is a waste of money.

No 16 slots -> can't make decent/cheap RAMdrive with enough capacity (32GB minimum). Plain and simple.

16 slots right now -> ultra expensive server mobo -> ultra expensive server memory like FB-DIMM -> a couple of additional grand just to get 32GB RAMdrive.

My solution -> a couple of additional HUNDRED, NOT GRAND, to get THE SAME 32GB hard drive.

So my solution is ten times cheaper with the same benefits. Plain and simple :-)


RE: RAM drive
By CommodoreVic20 on 4/29/2009 10:18:05 AM , Rating: 2
Lets not forget the big difference is the card would have a BATTERY to keep the data even while the computer is off while system memory would be lost. So a 16GB ram card could boot your OS in a couple of seconds everytime.


RE: RAM drive
By Kougar on 4/29/2009 10:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
Even the Acard battery only lasts just over four hours on a charge with 16GB of RAM. You'd need a huge battery if you want to store data in the RAM overnight let alone a full day for quick booting.


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs














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