Intel SSD 313 Series Cache Drives Have Arrived

Status
Not open for further replies.
Uhhh, Intel... SSDs are supposed to be a lot faster than hard drives, not rather parallel with them. Get with the times and stop making this crap. I don't even see a good reason to make an SSD that doesn't need SATA3 anymore. Sure, even on SATA2 a fast SSD is awesome, but SATA3 drives are backwards compatible, so there's no reason to not use the newer, faster SATA3 and saturate it at least a little.
 

victorious 3930k

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2012
85
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Uhhh, Intel... SSDs are supposed to be a lot faster than hard drives, not rather parallel with them. Get with the times and stop making this crap. I don't even see a good reason to make an SSD that doesn't need SATA3 anymore. Sure, even on SATA2 a fast SSD is awesome, but SATA3 drives are backwards compatible, so there's no reason to not use the newer, faster SATA3 and saturate it at least a little.[/citation]
The reason SSDs feel smoother are the IOPS, not the r/w speed.

BTW, both these comments come from a Vertex 4 buyer.
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator
[citation][nom]Hypertraxx[/nom]Still, slow, as Intel always is with SSD's.[/citation]

Yet the 520 has sppeds matching the Samsung 830 and Intel has a PCIe SSD coming out that will pretty much kill anything with its insane 2200MB/s read and 1800MB/s write:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Intel-710-Lyndonville-720-Ramsdale,12956.html

While I think these drives are a bit over priced, they will still do what they are designed to do; give the HDD an nice bit of speed boost.
 

Pawessum16

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2010
97
0
18,630
0
For the vast majority of consumers, at $120-140, it's useless. Hello Intel!!! SSD's have hit $1/GB. I only see this as worthwhile in enterprise reliability oriented environments.
 

fudoka711

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2012
1,308
0
19,960
251
[citation][nom]Hypertraxx[/nom]Still, slow, as Intel always is with SSD's.[/citation]

These are only used for caching I believe - so I'm assuming they operate in a similar manner to seagate's hybrid drives.

Intel's 520 ssd's are, as we all know, pretty darn fast.
 

jdamon113

Distinguished
Mar 20, 2009
170
0
18,690
2
Hypertraxx :

I just got the intel 520 drive with sandforce chipset. This is bar far the fastest drive I have owned and I have owned several.
I get it you dislike intel. So buy your sluggish Amd system, but bitch elseware or at least know what the hell your talking about. NOTE THIS intel drive have a the best reliability, so sure someone can make a faster system but what good is it when they fail. and they fail a lot.


 
G

Guest

Guest
wouldn't it be cheaper to get Crucials SSD Cache for around 100$ for 50GB
 

bison88

Distinguished
May 24, 2009
618
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]Hypertraxx[/nom]Still, slow, as Intel always is with SSD's.[/citation]


Bullshit on so many levels, and they market their different SSD's according to the segment they're selling it in, like all other SSD manufacturers do.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
let me take a guess... everyone complaining about cost vs gb dont understand what this drive is for.

this drive is a cashe drive... this isnt like other ones where it boots crap off of it, this is meant to be a scratch disk and preform in ways that would slit a standard ssds throat.

in that respect, this drive is expensive, but serves a much needed purpose... kind of... at least in systems where you cant upgrade them in whatever way you want... personally, i would go for a motherboard that could support craptons of ram, and make a scratch disc out of a ram drive.
 

victorious 3930k

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2012
85
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]let me take a guess... everyone complaining about cost vs gb dont understand what this drive is for.this drive is a cashe drive... this isnt like other ones where it boots crap off of it, this is meant to be a scratch disk and preform in ways that would slit a standard ssds throat. in that respect, this drive is expensive, but serves a much needed purpose... kind of... at least in systems where you cant upgrade them in whatever way you want... personally, i would go for a motherboard that could support craptons of ram, and make a scratch disc out of a ram drive.[/citation]
Enough craptons of ram would cost more than this.

BTW, the reason it's so "overpriced" is because they use SLC, not MLC, or even the horrible TLC.
 
G

Guest

Guest
So what are some typical applications and specific usage examples for something like this?
 

doron

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2009
553
0
19,010
24
Knowing that Qualcomm is gunning for cheap notebooks, which will be designed to be slim and probably with NAND cells, i feel that Intel is better selling those for way cheaper to OEMs.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]victorious 3930k[/nom]Enough craptons of ram would cost more than this.BTW, the reason it's so "overpriced" is because they use SLC, not MLC, or even the horrible TLC.[/citation]

if i had the money, and was using a system that i knew would be having heavy scratch disc use, i would probably get a server board, or at the very least a quad channel intel board, loading that up with 32gb would cost about 200$

you have to consider the type of system this is aimed at, and that is the person who will use it as a scratch disc because the memory in it can what... withstand a million or so writes? the person who would be looking into this as an option would already be willing to drop craptons on a system already, making this only really viable to a small amount of people who have a great system, but not great enough to make a scratch disc out of ram, and could use one thats faster than a hdd.

and its not overpriced, i never used that word because i was aware the type of memory its useing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS