backtop


Print 21 comment(s) - last by epobirs.. on Nov 2 at 10:01 PM

New SSD offers 240 GB of storage and promises a reasonable price.

Intel has rolled out a new line of solid-state drives to replace hard drives in computer systems. The new series is called the Intel SSD 335 Series and is aimed directly at the DIY consumer and entry-level enthusiasts. Intel promises that performance, quality, and price are hallmarks of this series.

Intel says that the SSD 335 Series uses the smallest and most efficient multi-level cell NAND flash on the market. This SSD is Intel's first to use 20nm NAND flash memory jointly developed by IBM/Technologies. The 64 Gb NAND uses a planner cell structure to overcome difficulties that accompany advanced process technology and enable better performance and reliability.
 
The fast memory inside this SSD allows the drive to have impressive performance with 4 kB reads of up to 42,000 IOPS and writes at up to 52,000 IOPS. The SSDs also promise sequential reads at up to 500 MB per second and sequential writes at 450MB/second. The SSD is only offered with a capacity of 240GB.

Intel uses a standard 2.5-inch form factor measuring 9.5 mm thick. The drive uses 6 Gb/s SATA connectivity is backed by a three-year limited warranty.


"The Intel SSD 335 uses Hi-K/metal gate planar cell technology, which overcomes NAND process scaling constraints to deliver the smallest-area NAND cell and die in the industry," said Rob Crooke, Intel vice president and general manager for the Intel Non-Volatile Memory (NVM) Solutions Group.
 
"By pushing technology constraints and using process innovation, Intel can continue to progress SSD technology and pass along savings to our customers."
 
The drive is currently priced at around $210 over at Newegg.

Source: Intel



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Laptop
By max_payne on 10/30/2012 10:57:09 AM , Rating: 2
The performance/price is not that great since it still used the Sandforce controller which struggle with uncompressible data writing. For a little less you can get something like an Ocz with has no penalty for that kind of data.

Vertex 4 256GB
Sustained Sequential Read: Up to 560 MB/s
Sustained Sequential Write: Up to 510 MB/s
4KB Random Read: Up to 90,000 IOPS
4KB Random Write: Up to 120,000 IOPS
5 years warranty


RE: Laptop
By Reclaimer77 on 10/30/2012 11:47:49 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah buy an OCz, which has a four times higher failure rate over Intel. All for higher sequential write speeds, which aren't important compared to random read/write.

No thank you. When it comes to SSD's there's Intel and Samsung. Everything else is a gamble that I'm not willing to take.


RE: Laptop
By AMDftw on 10/30/2012 11:53:01 AM , Rating: 2
I have never had a problem with any of my OCZ Agility 1,2 or 3. Maybe if people would leave the FW alone, they would last a lot longer.


RE: Laptop
By bug77 on 10/30/2012 11:56:56 AM , Rating: 2
Vertex4 does not use the Sandforce controller like its predecessors. This one might actually be ok. At least I hope so, having bought two of them.


RE: Laptop
By Samus on 10/30/2012 2:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
Fingers crossed with my Vertex 4 as well. It's so far the only OCZ SSD that hasn't failed on me.

My laptop and desktop both have Intel 320 SSD's, and while they're not super fast, the 160GB in my desktop is two years old and still has a 100% for the wear indicator, never caused a problem, and has never given me reason to use the warranty.

I actually hadn't even heard of an Intel SSD failing until the 520/330 series came out.


RE: Laptop
By Taft12 on 11/2/2012 4:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Vertex4 does not use the Sandforce controller like its predecessors. This one might actually be ok. At least I hope so, having bought two of them.


Don't count on it. The Agility 3 and Vertex 3 use the same controller as the Intel 330/520, Kingston V+200, Corsair Force 3, Mushkin Chronos, and a few others, yet still has higher failure rates than most or all of those.


RE: Laptop
By max_payne on 10/30/2012 12:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
Well it's part of the folklore that Ocz fails more then anyone else. If I look at the Newegg feedback, Intel has as much failure as the others (the older generation). The technology is pretty new and reliability improve continuously so it could be a gamble but the payoff is fantastic and I rather have a 5 years warranty then 3 though. I have the Vertex 64GB and so far so good. Is it still a good idea to image the OS once in a while for security.


RE: Laptop
By twhittet on 10/30/2012 12:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, you can't tell if Intel has as much failure by looking at Newegg - you would need sales #'s to know that.

If you go by rating, Intel has 4 and 5 "egg" ratings on 320's (older generation) and 330's. Vertex 4 I see 3 and 4 eggs, and no 5 egg ratings at all.

So, if you really want to judge by Newegg, that would mean Intel does fail less.


RE: Laptop
By tastyratz on 10/31/2012 9:38:05 AM , Rating: 2
This is true.
OCZ service was great when I had to RMA my agility 1...
But guess what? I still had to rma it.
I never reinstalled the drive that came back, no idea what I want to do with it. I picked up a crucial m4 instead and never looked back..


RE: Laptop
By Reclaimer77 on 10/30/2012 12:55:35 PM , Rating: 2
Nope I'm not saying OCz fails more than everyone else. I'm saying Intel is far ahead of everyone else in reliability. Which is why when it comes to Enterprise class SSD's, Intel stands alone.

Ocz is right there with all the others. You would just be crazy to pick one over an Intel imo.


RE: Laptop
By max_payne on 10/30/2012 1:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yes that's your opinion which I respect. As for me, I am a bit crazy and rather take my chances with a higher performance drive and a cheaper price (which I did). That's just me of course ...


RE: Laptop
By Reclaimer77 on 10/30/2012 1:41:22 PM , Rating: 1
No, it's not my opinion. Statistically speaking Intel is the most reliable brand, followed by Samsung. You can look it up yourself.

As far as performance, in real world use I doubt you could tell the difference between the two. But that's just me of course :)


RE: Laptop
By jRaskell on 10/30/2012 2:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, the statistics are hard facts, no arguing that.

I will argue the claim that anybody would be crazy to buy a non-Intel SSD. In an enterprise environment where thousands of drives are purchased a year and servers have to have a near 100% up time, then even a tenth of a percent difference in failure rate is significant.

For an enthusiast that buys maybe 1 drive a year, then a difference of 1-2% in failure rate is a judgement call. (last I looked, which was over a year ago, Intel was sub 1% failure rates and everyone else was in the 1-3% failure rate range. No idea what the numbers are today, but it's unlikely they're significantly different). In my personal judgement, a 2% failure rate is no more significant than a .5% failure rate when compared to a $60 difference in cost. You want to call me crazy for believing that, so be it, but that IS your opinion. (and as a side note, I went with the Crucial M4 myself, and haven't regretted it in the least)


RE: Laptop
By Samus on 10/30/2012 2:40:38 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, so taking into account an Intel drive performs about as well as an OCZ drive (we're talking margin of error here, read AT's 330-series review)

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5817/the-intel-ssd-3...

you are saying your data integrity is worth cheaping out for $20 bucks? Yeah, sorry bro, that's pretty crazy.


RE: Laptop
By max_payne on 10/30/2012 5:02:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think @jRaskell nailed it. Assuming a drive failure rate of below 5% for all brands which is similar to hard drives (don't start a Seagate vs Western war here), this reliability figure is a non issue. That failure rate is not that your data is 1% or 5% wrong, which will be intolerable at any rate in a computer, it just mean that over 100 drives, less then 5% will fails, which is a very good result. Performance, price is then more the issue. So it comes down that SDD are evolving very rapidly and every computer enthusiasm should get one even a small capacity for the OS. You'll never go back to a hard drive after.
Eh @samus, I don't see any Ocz drive in your article ?


RE: Laptop
By someguy123 on 10/30/2012 10:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
The only statistical aggregate I can find is behardware, which goes by surveyed return rate.

OCZ is pretty high overall (7%), but their individual drive returns are incredibly high depending on model. It really is a crapshoot when going OCZ. I don't see the point when samsung and crucial also produce very cheap SSDs with very high I/O.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/862-7/component...


RE: Laptop
By Reclaimer77 on 10/31/2012 12:00:24 AM , Rating: 2
Typical DT argument. Someone proves something statistically, and the counter is "well the facts don't really matter"...

Are you listening to yourselves? Really? Reliability numbers a "non issue"? I think if you are one of the ones who have their OS and programs corrupted, you would be singing a different tune.

A four times higher chance of your drive failing is insignificant? Huh? On what freaking planet!?

And for that, what amazing tradeoff are we getting with the OCZ? It's not even worth it.


RE: Laptop
By Just Tom on 10/31/2012 4:02:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A four times higher chance of your drive failing is insignificant? Huh? On what freaking planet!?


A four times higher chance of your drive failing can certainly be insigificant on this planet, depending on the relative drive failure rates and costs of the drives in question. There is nothing irrational at taking a slightly higher risk of failure, after all a failure rate of 1% is 4 times a failure rate of .025%, to achieve cost savings.

The bigger question is why anyone would trust their data to just one drive. After all these years you would figure enthusiasts have adopted the practice of daily backups.


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken











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