OCZ Endeavors to Bring Affordable SSDs

Status
Not open for further replies.

mlcloud

Distinguished
Mar 16, 2009
356
0
18,790
The Intel-m series are priced at about $4/GB so $3.42 is a pleasant drop if we're going to be guaranteed similar performance to the SSD that's been outperforming everything else on the market.
 

noobinberg

Distinguished
Jan 27, 2009
44
0
18,530
I can't see the justification in price....gaming doesn't require anything faster that a velociraptor and the price/size differences aren't making ssd's very attractive yet.
 

welah

Distinguished
Jun 5, 2009
3
0
18,510
Good, that really should be the manufacturer's focus. They've all been so focused on speed and efficiency for selling points, but they can't completely eclipse a really great HDD without astronomical prices.

Meanwhile many of us laptop owners would be happy with a relatively slow but shock-proof and silent SSD that's neither unaffordable nor incapacious.
 

agnickolov

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2006
520
0
18,980
The decimal point has to move one position to the left before we can call SSDs affordable. $0.34 per GB should do it. Give it a few more years.
 

anamaniac

Distinguished
Jan 7, 2009
2,447
0
19,790
I have not bought a SSD yet.
I still run a 80GB SATA and a 250GB SATAtogether... I'd be running another 80GB IDE and a 40GB IDE if my mobo supported IDE cleanly.

I do plan to buy a SDD eventually. At the price of raptors, why the hell wouldn't I buy a SSD? An exponential increase over a raptor, while the raptor isn't an exponential increase over a 7200rpm.

I believe that even though magnetic sorage is a wonderful proven technology, we will reach its limits much sooner.
 
G

Guest

Guest
If I plan on running my OS from it, it needs to be at least 32GB, and cost no more than $80. For 64GB I'm willing to pay $140. And for 128GB I'm willing to pay $256. 256GB should be priced no higher than $499 streetprice. I think these are more fair numbers to make a switch, only if following requirements are met:
- The IO ops are (much) faster than a regular HD, meaning it needs to random read & write small files faster than on a HD;
- The power consumption must be lower than a regular laptop HD.

Those are the only requirements to live with a tradeoff of higher price, lower diskspace.
 

invlem

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2008
580
0
18,980
At $2/GB I'd consider an SSD affordable for me, as I don't see anything below 60GB to be a viable option.

Considering my OS drive uses 45GB of space right now (and i'm running XP). Vista wouldn't even work for me unless I had a minimum of 60GB available.
 

jacobdrj

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2005
1,475
0
19,310
I would only consider SSD for special applications, such as notebooks and ultra-quiet systems. Laptops need it because even 7200 RPM drives are just too slow to be useful for quick use, not to mention they are much less rugged.

I have a G.Skill generation 1 drive. It is fine for program launch, but not for heavy use. I have a OCZ Vertex for my main tablet PC. It is great. Startup time is now reasonable, and I can take notes quickly, while conserving battery life (with fast sleep/wakup).
 
G

Guest

Guest
I have a 30 GB Vertex SSD that I paid about $100. Makes my raptor HD seem slow. Put my XP O/S on it and a few applications, currently occupying about 7 GB. Paired with a large capacity mechanical HD, it makes a great storage system. As far as I'm concerned, its the best upgrade you can add to your computer this year.
 

dainsane1

Distinguished
Nov 10, 2008
55
0
18,630
only ssd is the one in my 701 eee. not in a rush for ssd in my desktop. rather disappointed that netbooks are no longer shipped with ssd.
 

blackened144

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2006
1,051
0
19,280
I bought a 30gb Vertex for myself and worked out a deal with a customer that got me another one for an hr's worth of work.. These drives in raid0 kill.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.