Intel to Ship Value-Based X25-X SSD in Q4

[exfileme]

Intel said that it's shipping a value-priced SSD, the X25-X, before the end of the year.

Intel to Ship Value-Based X25-X SSD in Q4 : Read more

 

[fatkid35]

4 bucks a gig. no thanks!

 

[Gin Fushicho]

I saw under 160 bucks and got excited... then saw 40GB's. Doesnt seem any cheaper to me.

 

[mlcloud]

What the guys up there said.

 

[randomizer]

Write speeds aren't much chop.

 

[ubernoobie]

wow 40mb/s read, no thanks

 

[False_Dmitry_II]

With that write speed, I'd still much rather go with a VelociRaptor.

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]False_dmitry_ii[/nom]With that write speed, I'd still much rather go with a VelociRaptor.[/citation]
The small random reads will still far exceed the Velociraptor though. For an OS drive this is far more important than big sequential numbers like the ones posted here.

 

[El_Capitan]

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.

 

[porksmuggler]

The 80GB X25-M is currently $289 on newegg. how is this a value at $169 for 40GB, plus it's much slower?

 

[jaragon13]

"According to specs revealed to us, the value SSD will provide reading speeds of up to 170 MB/sec. and write speeds of up to 40 MB/sec"
TLC anyone?
Lol, this product sucks.

 

[snotling]

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]The small random reads will still far exceed the Velociraptor though. For an OS drive this is far more important than big sequential numbers like the ones posted here.[/citation]
benchmarkturbaters like big numbers... not actual performance and usefullness

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]snotling[/nom]benchmarkturbaters like big numbers... not actual performance and usefullness[/citation]
But in this case the big numbers are actually small numbers. Had they posted up a comparison of a HDD and this SSD in 4kB random reads it would have dominated. My OCZ Vertex (not directly comparable of course) is 25x faster than my WD Caviar Black. Wouldn't "25x faster than a spinning platter hard drive!!!!!!" look better than this?

 

[daship]

LMAO, EPIC fail this time Intel. If it were 80G, maybe, but forty, LOL.

 

[OvrClkr]

Intel SSD's = FAIL unless you are rich and like throwing money away.....

Im fine with dual 640's in raid 0, Intel can keep their overpriced drives....

 

[Darkness Flame]

Well, while 40 GB isn't much, it's large enough for a boot drive. The write speeds might suck, but other than install and updates, you're not going to be writing to the drive too much if it's only a boot drive. But I do have to agree that $160 is a bit too much for this. I think it's because they don't want people buying two of these for RAID 0 instead of an 80 GB M series. If this drive was either 60 GB, or more towards $120, I'd find it much more appealing.

 

[amdgamer666]

Wow I have mixed feelings about this drive. It was just the other day that I wondering why Intel didn't have a 40 gig ssd out because for the right price it would dominate the market (assuming it has similar performance of course). At $160, this drive is a little enticing but as other commenters have pointed out, it doesn't improve GB/$. The thing that will make or break this drive is real world performance. 170 MB/s read and 40 MB/s write means next to nothing to those of us who are actually in the market for a ssd. If this "budget" drive actually has similar performance to its big brother, this will be a really attractive option. If, however, its performance falls short of an OCZ Vertex 32 GB's performance, specifically in random reads and writes, then it'll flop. I sincerely hope for the sake of everybody in the market for a ssd on a budget, including myself, that this drive performs competitively.

 

[M3d]

I'll wait until I can get a 120GB drive with X25-M speeds for ~$1/gig. Until them my 640GB 32MB Caviar Black is good enough. This thing is too over priced for the performance.

 

[one-shot]

So, it's half the size, almost half the write speeds, for not even close to half of Intel's MSRP on the X25-M-G2 80GB. On the good side, read speeds are still high so applications should be much more responsive that they would be on a standard HDD.

 

[Master Exon]

Kind of a drag, really...

 

[descendency]

[citation][nom]m3d[/nom]I'll wait until I can get a 120GB drive with X25-M speeds for ~$1/gig. Until them my 640GB 32MB Caviar Black is good enough. This thing is too over priced for the performance.[/citation]

These SSDs look like garbage, but a good SSD is more of a performance boost than a new CPU/RAM/Motherboard.

 

[JonathanDeane]

Hmmm this would be cool for ready boost, didn't they unlimit it for 7? One drive for ready boost another nice fast hard drive for swap and a third slower drive for the OS. Last but not least would be one for media and back ups Starting to sound like my machine I am posting from... (well except the ready boost drive)

 

[Master Exon]

[citation][nom]JonathanDeane[/nom]Hmmm this would be cool for ready boost, didn't they unlimit it for 7? One drive for ready boost another nice fast hard drive for swap and a third slower drive for the OS. Last but not least would be one for media and back ups Starting to sound like my machine I am posting from... (well except the ready boost drive)[/citation]
40GB of ready-boost? Are you...?

 

[zelog]

[citation][nom]ubernoobie[/nom]wow 40mb/s read, no thanks[/citation]

Your name says it all.

 

[anamaniac]

Hell, I just bought 8x500GB 7200.10 drives with a raid card on a C2D system... less than the ost of three of there...