Intel Confirms, Replicates SSD Firmware Bug

Status
Not open for further replies.

doomtomb

Distinguished
May 12, 2009
810
0
18,980
0
Intel has been slacking recently. Exorbitant prices and things that don't work, disregarding USB 3.0 as unimportant... wow... Intel needs to get slapped in the face right about now.
 

Onyx2291

Distinguished
Sep 25, 2009
178
0
18,690
1
Oh man that sucks to have that bricked. Unfortunate for an update like that would cause that. I don't have one but hope a fix comes up soon.
 

El_Capitan

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2009
431
0
18,810
5
I've been commenting since forever that Intel's X25-M is an overpriced piece of dud that for some reason OEM's only use for SSD's. Crucial's M225 series and Corsair's P series are the ones to get.

Too bad every distributor out there is rising their SSD prices for Black Friday (day after Thanksgiving), so that when they go on sale, they get back to the already pricey $350 pricetag. No illusion, check out all the prices, SSD's for 128GB are hitting $450, when just 7 months ago they were at $280.
 

lubitz_420

Distinguished
Nov 5, 2009
14
0
18,510
0
good to see they don't just try to sweep the problem under the rug by offering a replacement to those who lost their drive functionality and then just letting it trail off into oblivion +1 to solving the problem rather than hiding it
 

ctbaars

Distinguished
Dec 16, 2007
496
0
18,810
9
@ El_Capitan. I'm having a hard time finding a post by you that says, "Intel's X25-M is an overpriced piece of dud that for some reason OEM's only use for SSD's"
 

El_Capitan

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2009
431
0
18,810
5
I like how I get a thumbs every time I comment on the Intel X250M, but on all my other comments always gets a thumb's up. There's some Intel fanboy's in this thread. :)
 

El_Capitan

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2009
431
0
18,810
5
[citation][nom]ctbaars[/nom]@ El_Capitan. I'm having a hard time finding a post by you that says, "Intel's X25-M is an overpriced piece of dud that for some reason OEM's only use for SSD's"[/citation]
I guess I found one Intel fanboi. I don't post threads like that. I only comment on the news sections. They're probably hidden because the Intel fanboi's like giving my comments the thumbs down.

You'll find me repeatedly telling people that the Prices per Storage and Performance is vastly inferior (besides throughput) to that of the once-cheaper Crucial CT128M225 and Corsair P128. There was even an article a few months back noting the comparisons (but on 256GB versions).
 

El_Capitan

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2009
431
0
18,810
5
[citation][nom]ctbaars[/nom]@ El_Capitan. I'm having a hard time finding a post by you that says, "Intel's X25-M is an overpriced piece of dud that for some reason OEM's only use for SSD's"[/citation]

Intel to Ship Value-Based X25-X SSD in Q4
10-16-2009 at 09:25:58 PM
Besides for throughput, Corsair's CT128M225 and Crucial's P128 are much better overall. Plus, I'm starting to get rather annoyed. What's with this new business model over the last few years? I remember when the latest and best model got the high price tag, then dropped in price as a newer and better model came out. Nowadays, the latest model price stays the same (or in SSD's cases, goes up) when a newer but lower performance model comes out.

Intel Pulls X25-M G2 TRIM Firmware Update
10-27-2009 at 11:44:36 PM
For those that put a thumbs down on my last post about the Intel X-35m... haha.

*****

Well, if you fanboi's don't keep giving a thumb's down to my comments, you'd probably have read them.
 

El_Capitan

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2009
431
0
18,810
5
[citation][nom]ctbaars[/nom]@ El_Capitan. I'm having a hard time finding a post by you that says, "Intel's X25-M is an overpriced piece of dud that for some reason OEM's only use for SSD's"[/citation]
Oh yeah, another hidden one.

New Intel 34nm X25-M SSD Firmware Brings Impressive Performance Gains
10-26-2009 at 02:02:40 PM
A new firmware for the Intel X25-M G1 is nice and all, but the SSD still fails price per performance per space against Crucial's M225 and Corsair's P128/P256. All you get with the X25-M G1 is great I/O performance. Write speeds are still pretty low compared to going up to 200MB's W/s.

Intel X25-m = 160GB, $659.00, 250 MB/s Read, 70 MB/s Write
Crucial M225 = 256GB, $675.00, 250 MB/s Read, 200 MB/s Write
Corsair P256 = 256GB, $719.00 (free shipping), 220 MB/s Read, 200 MB/s Write

Prices are from Newegg's retail prices. You can get them cheaper other places and OEM.

*****

gg, no re
 

El_Capitan

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2009
431
0
18,810
5
[citation][nom]ctbaars[/nom]rofl! Thanks, El_Capitan. I guess you're a fan of Corsair's CT128M225 and Crucial's P128's[/citation]
I'm a fan of the better products, then put pricing into the equation. Intel, AMD, NVidia, ATI, Crucial, Corsair, Kingston, Western Digital, Seagate, etc...

That's what Tom's Hardware was supposed to be about with their articles, but it's becoming less and less that way.
 

goodguy713

Distinguished
Oct 23, 2009
1,177
0
19,460
94
well if they can drag usb 3.0 out longer then they stand to make more money .because they can offer it as a massive upgrade. right now there is no real pressure on them to put out faster cpu's or add usb 3.0 because they are on top of the market. AMD is still at best a year behind them. also i would not be surprised if some thing else was holding them back. usb 3.0 would be awesome to have thing is even the ssd drives barely are able to keep up with the maximum read cycles ..
 

cdillon

Distinguished
Mar 6, 2009
55
0
18,630
0
@El_Capitan: You're only looking at Sequential read/write performance. If that's all you really care about then, yes, the Intel drives are over-priced for what they give you. But take a look at random read/write performance and especially performance scaling when the queue-depth rises on the Intel drives. They blow those cheaper drives completely out of the water on random or heavily concurrent workloads where sequential rates don't matter nearly as much. The Intel drives are more balanced instead of trying to focus too much on sequential transfer rates. The whole wide world of computing isn't made just for average desktop users, there ARE other needs out there.
 

rippleyhakd

Distinguished
May 24, 2008
33
0
18,530
0
I dont know what scares me more.. A backpedling internet guy, or a forum stalker that actually has remarks from 20+ days ago, at his finger tips..
 

digitalrazoe

Distinguished
Jun 23, 2009
171
0
18,680
0
hmm... looks like I will keep using my "spinners" for a long time to come. ( $99 dollar 1.5TB 60MB avg bandwidth harddrive failure or a 600+ 160gig 200MB SSD failure ?) yup.. I will take the slow lane for now ( you spin me right round baby right round..)
 

El_Capitan

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2009
431
0
18,810
5
[citation][nom]rippleyhakd[/nom]I dont know what scares me more.. A backpedling internet guy, or a forum stalker that actually has remarks from 20+ days ago, at his finger tips..[/citation]
Yeah, like clicking on Forums and See All threads is a difficult thing to do... I'd go with the backpedaling internet girl.
 

El_Capitan

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2009
431
0
18,810
5
[citation][nom]cdillon[/nom]@El_Capitan: You're only looking at Sequential read/write performance. If that's all you really care about then, yes, the Intel drives are over-priced for what they give you. But take a look at random read/write performance and especially performance scaling when the queue-depth rises on the Intel drives. They blow those cheaper drives completely out of the water on random or heavily concurrent workloads where sequential rates don't matter nearly as much. The Intel drives are more balanced instead of trying to focus too much on sequential transfer rates. The whole wide world of computing isn't made just for average desktop users, there ARE other needs out there.[/citation]
Of course, but if you look at all the desktops and laptops that can be customized in the market for average desktop users, they go with only the Intel SSD's. Any Enterprise user out there for servers will still go with SCSI drives than the Intel SSD. They won't offer the Intel SSD for servers, and for good reason.
 

zerapio

Distinguished
Nov 4, 2002
396
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]El_Capitan[/nom]Of course, but if you look at all the desktops and laptops that can be customized in the market for average desktop users, they go with only the Intel SSD's. Any Enterprise user out there for servers will still go with SCSI drives than the Intel SSD. They won't offer the Intel SSD for servers, and for good reason.[/citation]

So you're saying that businesses care more about sequential performance?
 

backin5

Distinguished
Oct 23, 2009
146
0
18,680
0
This reminds me of the Seagate firmware fiasco, a year ago. Although, that was caused by factory test misapplication.

Let's hope Intel handles this problem better than Seagate did.

 

El_Capitan

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2009
431
0
18,810
5
[citation][nom]asdf123456789[/nom]El_Capitan, I'm not sure why an enterprise user wouldn't want to go with an Intel SSD:http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3631http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3532&p=11[/citation]
Can't argue that. Man, that's a great article.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS