SanDisk Intros SSD for Retail Consumers

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not sure claiming they have the fastest SATA II SSD drive is all that impressive. There are faster SATA III drives that are backwards compatible with SATA II so the point falls a little short for me. Plus, why spend the cash on a SATA II SSD drive when you can get a SATA III drive for future upgrades.
 
seriously, we need a commercial psa for these companies.

the ssds are fast enough. please bring the price down.
(skinny a** malnutritioned kid) this poor kid has been waiting non stop for the price of ssds to fall to reasonable levels, he is on the verge of dieing he has waited so long, refusing to eat till it happens. (pan to the nearly dead dog) even his dog is suffering from this lack of food till ssds are reasonably priced.... please, r&d cheaper ssds, not faster... for this kid, and this dog.

the whole time. play a song so depressing that you cant shed a tear if you have a soul.

seriously, i would take a 50 read and write ssd, because for me, no seek is the best thing about it, the performance can be s*** as far as everything else, i just need the seek times.
 
[citation][nom]applegetsmelaid[/nom]I had to sell my little toe on the black market for my first SSD. Worth every penny.[/citation]
I donated my body for science in taking experimental drugs for this!
 
I'm personally gonna wait until SSD manufacturers stop ripping people off.
There's no way it even costs close to that much to produce a few small chips, especially at 32nm and below.
I'm gonna wait until it's about $100 for 100-120GB. They're really milking it this time.
 
Oh yeah, this is coming from someone already getting around 200MB Read/Write from a raid 10 array, 4 Samsung Spinpoint F3's SJ model. each less than $100 and a terabyte each.
 
[citation][nom]kanaida[/nom]I'm personally gonna wait until SSD manufacturers stop ripping people off.There's no way it even costs close to that much to produce a few small chips, especially at 32nm and below.I'm gonna wait until it's about $100 for 100-120GB. They're really milking it this time.[/citation]
[citation][nom]kanaida[/nom]Oh yeah, this is coming from someone already getting around 200MB Read/Write from a raid 10 array, 4 Samsung Spinpoint F3's SJ model. each less than $100 and a terabyte each.[/citation]

yea, the no seek time would put that raid to shame though, but than again that is what, 2tb of storage with a backup for redundancy?

2tb and a backup for lets say 400$, or 450$ for 240gb and no backup.

realy for me an ssd needs to hit 1$ a gb before i but s***
low performance ssds need to hit 25cents a gb before i buy them either
 
But really, who cares?

For this to be frontpage-worthy it should have had SATA III and the speeds (500MB/s) to match.

And the OCZ Solid 3, which can usually be found at around the same price point, stomps this drive into oblivion.
 
Um, for $219~, the SanDisk gets RAPED by the M4.


I'd only buy the drive if it was like $130-140 for 120GB. Otherwise, I'll get the M4 for around $200 and enjoy the better performance.


And yeah, they really are milking the SSD markets - they need to mass produce and cut costs. Currently, most people do not own SSDs.
 
IIRC, the SATAIII SSD's may be backwards compatible, in that they function on SATAII ports, however, they seem to take a big performance hit, in excess of the SATAII specifications, because of the bandwidth cap playing havoc with the SSD's firmware.

As an aside, where the H#*% has SanDisk been all these years? They used to be THE company for high performance flash memory for my camera and PMPs. What took them so long to get into the SSD market?
 
"Replacing a computer's hard disk drive with the SanDisk Ultra SSD is more cost effective than buying a new PC."

...moron. Well I take it back...that may be something you have to explain to an Apple fanboy.
 
[citation][nom]kanaida[/nom]I'm personally gonna wait until SSD manufacturers stop ripping people off.There's no way it even costs close to that much to produce a few small chips, especially at 32nm and below.I'm gonna wait until it's about $100 for 100-120GB. They're really milking it this time.[/citation]
Don't forget R&D costs, and making up the cost of building or re-equipping factories. The so-called "marginal cost" for producing one more unit is one of the least relevant measures for figuring cost or profit.
 
Speed aside, aren't these things worth it because of no moving parts? I would think these things generate substantially less heat. Is that not the case?
 
[citation][nom]clonazepam[/nom]The kingston 96GB is on sale for $100 after rebate.[/citation]
That drive went 'sold out' before anyone even noticed it was there... The demand is too high. That price is still too low. We are nowhere near saturating the market with more SSDs...
 
[citation][nom]tburns1[/nom]Speed aside, aren't these things worth it because of no moving parts? I would think these things generate substantially less heat. Is that not the case?[/citation]
Going from about 4cents per gig to over $2? performance, sure, but, paying well above top dollar for moderate gains? I mean, it's not like you went from a 4870x2 power usage to a 6870. minimal by comparison. The reason they're charging what they are? People are paying it, and it's not necessary. Look at the i7-990x. $1100 for a chip? Why would Intel charge so much for so some gains in far-and-few-between areas? Simple. People want it? They'll pay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom