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 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)

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.

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
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.

“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls

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