Corsair Enters SSD Market With 128 GB SSD

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Say what you may, but I still think $335 for a 'slow' SSD is still a lot of money!

A nice price would be sub $1 per GB flash drives (SSD)
 
I agree with pro digit. A more appropriate price would be around $200 for only 128gb..I mean it is ONLY 128gb. That might hold a couple of new games and some mp3s. But it sure isn't going to be well suited for downloading stuff.
 
I rather disappointed. I could understand the slow speeds if this was some sort of cheaper budget model, but it's not, so it's rather pointless to even try.

[citation][nom]Bone Squat[/nom]I agree with pro digit. A more appropriate price would be around $200 for only 128gb..I mean it is ONLY 128gb. That might hold a couple of new games and some mp3s. But it sure isn't going to be well suited for downloading stuff.[/citation]
Are you kidding? Even if all the games you played installed the capacity of Dual-Layer DVDs, that would be 16 games. The average installs I see nowadays are usually a couple of gigs, not 8.

Not to mention you could fit well over 15,000 mp3s. Your math skills must suck.
 
It might seem "slow" but this looks to be the samsung SLC drive. Expect no stutter and great battery life.
 
[citation][nom]Bone Squat[/nom]I agree with pro digit. A more appropriate price would be around $200 for only 128gb..I mean it is ONLY 128gb. That might hold a couple of new games and some mp3s. But it sure isn't going to be well suited for downloading stuff.[/citation]

You, sir, are an idiot. SSDs are not yet for general storage, they are for high performance disk access, basicly your OS and programs. Anyone whos 'downloading' is going to use traditional hard drives.
 
"read and write speeds of 90 MB/s and 70 MB/s,"

That's what you do. Buy somebody's leftover first-gen stock, stick a good brand on it, and sell it for three times what its worth.
 
[citation][nom]TIndytim[/nom]I rather disappointed. I could understand the slow speeds if this was some sort of cheaper budget model, but it's not, so it's rather pointless to even try.
Are you kidding? Even if all the games you played installed the capacity of Dual-Layer DVDs, that would be 16 games. The average installs I see nowadays are usually a couple of gigs, not 8.Not to mention you could fit well over 15,000 mp3s. Your math skills must suck.[/citation]
In fact many new games DO take up 6-8gb each. At least the majority of those games I've seen over the last 6 months are in the range of 4-9gb.

[citation][nom]B-Unit[/nom]You, sir, are an idiot. SSDs are not yet for general storage, they are for high performance disk access, basicly your OS and programs. Anyone whos 'downloading' is going to use traditional hard drives.[/citation]
If indeed this ssd is sold for high performance disk access, wouldn't one be stupid to buy it? I mean - it's SLOWER (sequential read) than a cheap 1tb drive, which will provide a lot more space at a lower cost.
The only real smart use of this device imo would be in langaming systems, where weight and durability (physical) is as important as performance. So I think you're more of an idiot than the guy that thinks this is overpriced really.
 
were all forgetting that these drives have incredible seek times which perform well with loading apps, windows startup etc - no normal hdd can keep up with a 0.1ms (or less) seek time between files etc
 
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]were all forgetting that these drives have incredible seek times which perform well with loading apps, windows startup etc - no normal hdd can keep up with a 0.1ms (or less) seek time between files etc[/citation]
Which has become quite neglible an advantage, if you've got vista and a readyboost usb stick.
But sure, at random seeks it'll beat a normal drive. Question is, if it's worth 3usd per gb to have, if the alternative is 0.75usd per gb on a drive with inferior seek time, but superior average read time - which is what you need once windows has booted. Since vista automaticly defrags the users harddrive unless they stop it, a lot of reading is sequential these days. And most games ported from crashbox or gaystation load files alphabetically, futher increasing the benefit of sequential fast reading as opposed to better random seeks.
 
Its like Celeron vs Pentium etc - both work, the Pentium being a more expensive and faster solution that the celeron, and is the better choice if you can afford it.

Heh readyboost caps my network transfer speeds and a few other things down to the pathetic speed of a "high end" pen drive - apps do load faster, but cant be compared to more ram or a faster hdd, in my case Raid 0, 8gb and i used to have ready boots till the network limits etc.

As for "neglible advantage" - check out what people say on NewEgg - "I have never witnessed a single component change affect performance so much as one of these." http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167005

In a few months ill prolly pick up 2 for my rig (raid0) - cant wait.
 
There are a number of uses where random access time is king. In these cases, traditional HDs choke on access time and can only throughput 10-20MB/s. If this can actually achieve 90MB/70MB while doing random reads/writes it would kill for these uses.

Anyone suggesting you would store MP3's or downloads on an SSD is clueless.
 
[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]Guess I'm just used to fast drives, and don't see the point of them then. Imo it's still a neglible advantage however.[/citation]

When your playing FPS games online and every time a level loads and that little bastard kills you before you can even get into position, hes most likely running a rig with 4xVR's or SSD's etc - we all know those kind of people who pay anything for the advantage 😀
 
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]When your playing FPS games online and every time a level loads and that little bastard kills you before you can even get into position, hes most likely running a rig with 4xVR's or SSD's etc - we all know those kind of people who pay anything for the advantage[/citation]

I'm not into mindles fps games u know. I do enjoy my crysis and farcry 2 shooters, but in single player only. I'm just too old to beat some 15 year old kids reflexes.

So I'm playing strategy games and stuff like world of warcraft. And I dare say neither of those need more speed than my raid 5 provides.
 
Well in part id have to agree, not even im willing to pay for 2x80gb Intel SSD's at the moment for no "real" benifit apart from lightning loading times (what, 2% total time on a system etc) - whatever an SSD can do, a hdd with moving parts can also do 😀
 
i just got one of these in my system (s128 and an WD black 1TB for storage want to see why SSDs Samsung and Indilinx Controller chip are king and JMicron are crap do not buy them)
my test results (could only do read only tests goign to add write later on) http://forum.corsair.com/v3/showpost.php?p=401919&postcount=6
corsair vs JMicron SSD http://www.legitreviews.com/article/949/5/

DATA rate is not as important with SSDs as most hdds are not allways doing big file reads the S128 is allso very cheap you could buy 2 of them to get 256gb and same price of an 128gb vertex
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom