Intel 710 Lyndonville, 720 Ramsdale SSD Specs

[Marcus Yam]

There's some ludicrous speed.

Intel 710 Lyndonville, 720 Ramsdale SSD Specs : Read more

 

[tank]

2200 MB/s and 1800 MB/s

Wow... thats freakin awesome.

 

[dogman_1234]

A couple of kilobytes of info thrashing? Wow, can't wait until it becomes gigabytes. One step at a time to better SSD's.

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]tank[/nom]2200 MB/s and 1800 MB/sWow... thats freakin awesome.[/citation]
You have not seen the price tag yet (~$3,000).

 

[dogman_1234]

^ Hehe...

 

[Guest]

so fast.

 

[knowom]

If you use supercache/supervolume to utilize some of your system ram as a cache buffer around 512MB-1GB on SSD's or USB thumb drives you can do much faster speeds than that the quicker the system ram the better.

 

[kinggremlin]

25Watts? That's way beyond even 10 year old 15k SCSI drives. How did they manage to make it consume that much power?

 

[tallpaul02]

so why are they not making a competitive sataIII ssd? the 510 series is not competitive with the ~500-550MB/s drives on the market and the 710/720 are way below and way above them respectively. seem to be missing out on a pretty big opportunity there.

 

[reprotected]

[citation][nom]tallpaul02[/nom]so why are they not making a competitive sataIII ssd? the 510 series is not competitive with the ~500-550MB/s drives on the market and the 710/720 are way below and way above them respectively. seem to be missing out on a pretty big opportunity there.[/citation]
SATA II is way more than enough to suffice. In fact, even the 720 doesn't need SATA III (though it's released only for the PCIe slot).

 

[tallpaul02]

[citation][nom]reprotected[/nom]SATA II is way more than enough to suffice. In fact, even the 720 doesn't need SATA III (though it's released only for the PCIe slot).[/citation]um...no? sata2 has a theoretical limit of 300MB/s and sata3 has such of 600MB/s. subtract out the difference between theoretical limits and actual performance and no, sata2 is not anywhere near enough. how do you figure 2200 read and 1800 write is going to happen on a 300MB/s interface?

 

[bin1127]

so the pci-e drive will be bootable? I'd buy that. I just have to check with my golden goose.

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]tallpaul02[/nom]um...no? sata2 has a theoretical limit of 300MB/s and sata3 has such of 600MB/s. subtract out the difference between theoretical limits and actual performance and no, sata2 is not anywhere near enough. how do you figure 2200 read and 1800 write is going to happen on a 300MB/s interface?[/citation]
Ehmmm, it states it right in the short article that it is PCI-E not SATA, unless I missed something you both have missed the point.

 

[tallpaul02]

[citation][nom]radiovan[/nom]Ehmmm, it states it right in the short article that it is PCI-E not SATA, unless I missed something you both have missed the point.[/citation]reportected was saying that sata2 was more than enough. i was pointing out the problem with that statement (and the obvious reason they opted for pcie as a result.

 

[iamtheking123]

So basically one of these is as fast as DDR3 1600 ram?

 

[aaron88_7]

I love how quickly SSD's are advancing, but only because I don't yet own one. I'm still holding out until the capacity and cost per gigabyte comes down a bit more. If I actually bought one I'd be pissed because it seems in 3 months whatever you buy now will be completely obsolete by a newer, faster, and cheaper model.

 

[jimmysmitty]

[citation][nom]kinggremlin[/nom]25Watts? That's way beyond even 10 year old 15k SCSI drives. How did they manage to make it consume that much power?[/citation]

PCIe bus, thats how. A PCIe 2.0 x16 lane provides 150 watts of power while SATA doesn't. Its possible that the bus itself is unable to throttle power usage or in order to obtain those speeds, they need a minimal amount of power at all times.

Still, 2200MB/s would be insane and this is probably geared towards servers mainly. It will probably be at least a 4x PCIe 2.0 as well.

 

[Pyree]

[citation][nom]tallpaul02[/nom]so why are they not making a competitive sataIII ssd? the 510 series is not competitive with the ~500-550MB/s drives on the market and the 710/720 are way below and way above them respectively. seem to be missing out on a pretty big opportunity there.[/citation]

Make sense since the performance is about 10x better, it use about 10x more power.

 

[Pyree]

[citation][nom]kinggremlin[/nom]25Watts? That's way beyond even 10 year old 15k SCSI drives. How did they manage to make it consume that much power?[/citation]

Sorry qoute the wrong comment shout be this one

 

[rantoc]

[citation][nom]Pyree[/nom]Make sense since the performance is about 10x better, it use about 10x more power.[/citation]

Indeed, likely Intel's with the 720 have made what Ocz did with their Revo Drive line. Tons of nands and several controllers linked together with a raid chip. If so the question is what raid level is used (hopefully something like raid5 since it can handle if one of the controllers die completely but more likely raid0 due to cost) and the bigger question - Does it support trim?

Or the burst could be explained that intel uses a clever ram cache on the pci-e board, time will tell!

 

[Gigahertz20]

Can't wait until I can get a several hundred GB SSD drive like these for $200 or less, I wonder how many years it's gonna take.

 

[malphas]

PCIe is definitely the future for SSDs once all the niggles are ironed out.

 

[Travis Beane]

Faster and cheaper every day, SSD is becoming a serious alternative now for more than just power users.

 

[elcentral]

if the speed ceeps improving we might not need ram eny more,

 

[drwho1]

still don't care until SSD's are big and cheap enough for the mass market.

at least 500GB for around $100-150.

anything higher is not worth it.