Video: Intel launching 80GB 1.8- and 2.5-inch SSDs in Q3?

As evidence begins to amass around the imminent launch of Intel's consumer oriented High Performance SSDs, we finally get model numbers, dates, and capacities from Taiwan. According to DigiTimes and its "sources at PC makers," Intel is prepping a 2.5-inch Client X25-M SSD and 1.8-inch Client X18-M SSD for launch in Q3. Both of the SATA drives will initially launch in 80GB capacities before hitting 160GB by the end of Q4 -- 250GB and beyond in 2009. We'll guess that they'll be sporting the "world's fastest" SLC NAND co-developed with Micron making the drives tres cher fo' sho'. However they come, they'll likely be snuggled up to Intel's new Centrino 2 laptops when they do arrive.

P.S. We dug up a promo video which we've bunged into the page after the break.

[gad get @ May 23rd 2008 7:25AM]

Why does the vid look like a low-quality youtube thing?

[Hellios @ May 23rd 2008 7:30AM]

I wonder how much the 1.8" 80gb will cost... Also why does everybody ignore 3.5" drives when making SSDs?

[ed. @ May 23rd 2008 8:22AM]

because at the moment, 3.5" drives are only used in desktops.

the main attraction of SSD is its lower power usage and will remain being aimed at the laptop market until their sustained read and write speeds get better.

For desktops, a good 7200rpm or a raptor would be a much better option, also considering the ever dropping prices of hard drives

[Ender17 @ May 25th 2008 4:52AM]

Mtron and Memoright both offer 3.5" versions of their SSDs.
If you want a 2.5" drive in your desktop, just get a converter for $5.

ed., that's simply not true
SSDs use about the same amount of energy as a conventional hard drive.
Infact, battery life can actually be decreased
http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=3287&p=4

Also, the current SLC SSDs are faster than any hard drive in most tests. They can't quite match burst transfer rates of the VelociRaptor, but those aren't significant.
http://www.storagereview.com/php/benchmark/suite_v4.php?typeID=10&testbedID=4&osID=6&raidconfigID=1&numDrives=1&devID_0=363&devID_1=360&devCnt=2

Furthermore, the main benefit of an SSD is the access time. Even 15k drives are over 5 ms, compared to 0.1 ms for SSDs. This is what gives them the "snappy" feeling. Transfer rates will continue to increase and I'd say before the end of the year, there will be SSDs out the completely dominate in this area as well.

[SoloSalsa @ May 28th 2008 9:08PM]

I agree: if they make a single thin board, even 3.5 inches, it could lay stacked with the optical drive. This saves area in the laptop base, possible for a bigger battery, or preferably, a much larger heatsink. Or maybe instead of a laptop with dual 2.5 drives, they could have a single (or dual stacked) 3.5 flash drive.

[Jason Baldini @ May 29th 2008 1:50PM]

Two comments:
Ender17 you are wrong the link suggest the SSD requires more because in that case a PATA-SATA bridge is required but that will not be the case in proper designs. Designs meant for native serial.

Also name me one device per size in which a mechanical unit takes up less energy than a non-moving unit.

Why do you think there is a fuel problem, because these machines requires so much energy they have to burn fuel, electricity isn't enough.

SSD drives require less power irregardless of their effect on PDU devices battery.

You do no measure this by seeing which last longer on a battery in a bad unit (MacBooks aren't meant to benefit by this design as of yet) or improper design you measure this directly to eliminate all other bottlenecks and possible design flaws. Also comparing a solid vendor to a smaller, about to be acquired, company.

I guarantee if you can compare apples to apples, brand for brand, an SSD would be far more efficient and less of a hog than a mechanical drive. It's simple logic and physics to discern this. What produces more energy, a windmill or solar panel, now that's hardly apples to apples but think about it.

And 3.5 drives are going away, servers are using 2.5 drives, so you have laptops and servers using 2.5 GB drives, desktops soon to follow that why you don't see them wasting time on a 3.5, that's like improving the VCR technology, yes they still make them and they will but you won't see improvements, and I know it's not that bad but I'm using an example.

[jak0b @ May 23rd 2008 8:19AM]

uhm sound???

[Maestro @ May 23rd 2008 8:59AM]

You are now witnessing the beginning of the end of magnetic hard drives. I am not saying it is happening in the next couple of years, but it is coming.

You will tell your kids you used to store stuff on a spinning disc and they will snicker...

[The Apple @ May 23rd 2008 9:00AM]

lol

[SoloSalsa @ May 28th 2008 9:11PM]

You very well may be right. Maybe an SSD will be part of the next Centrino specification? (a Centrino machine is any laptop with Intel-branded processor, chipset, and wNIC, all made to play nice and efficiently together; perhaps Centrino 3 will include solid storage)

[The Apple @ May 23rd 2008 8:59AM]

What happened to Bit formed sizes, eg. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64...
Why the solid numbers???

[Blackster @ May 23rd 2008 9:41AM]

ehr, where do you live?
so the 20gb, 30gb, 40gb, 60gb, 80gb, and so on drives went right past your viewpoint?
^^

[The Apple @ May 23rd 2008 10:07PM]

Thats magnetic you idiot, SSD's were always in 32, 64, 128 gb sizes.

[Cole Mitguard @ May 23rd 2008 9:15AM]

They are coming, and they are coming fast, the roll out of these SSD's, in my opinion is going to be much faster than many people think. These things are hot, even the computer illiterate are starting to catch on that there is some other storage device than the old hard drive. I look forward to see they next SSD step as they move away form the entire 2.5 and 3.5 sizing system and we start seeing these small, 2 lb notebooks, with 500 gig hd, haha. Maybe this time next year... but that is more than hopeful.

[boe @ May 23rd 2008 9:22AM]

Is this like the Q9550 they "launched" in January of 2008 and you still can't get your hands on? Intel's premature speculation leaves many unsatisfied.

[smooth_ride @ May 28th 2008 9:08AM]

Exhibit A to the OTSC why INTC/MU Joint Venture should be enjoined from distribution or sale until a L&R agreement from MU to SNDK is executed. This is tantamount to an all out admission that the SSD is NOT a result of INTC's cross-licensing agreement with SNDK, but a result of MU reliance on SNDK IP.

[ManoloDF @ May 23rd 2008 10:06AM]

How does Moore's Law calculate this?

[Sean @ May 23rd 2008 2:18PM]

Moore's law deals with the number of transistors on a CPU. Nothing to do with a hard drive

[Che @ May 23rd 2008 10:07AM]

Any speculation on price?

[Bk7 @ May 23rd 2008 10:09AM]

Are we to believe that these future SSDs are as silent as that video too?

[Fed @ May 23rd 2008 10:37AM]

Remember when 4X CDROM burners cost $400?
Companies are enjoy the SSD ride bigtime, high prices for a technology that isn't new at all.

Look at Sony, they are raping people on blueray players. Give it 2 years and you'll be able to buy a blueray player for $99 at wallmart or best buy.

SSD is the future of harddrives but if you are dumb enough to bite now and pay high prices..well then you just suck.

[Adam @ May 23rd 2008 12:12PM]

Ummm it is called Economies of Scale and achieving a suitable ROI. Companies are able to charge less for a product years after its introduction because the cost of the related equipment and research has been subsequently paid off by the initial higher prices that were charged at launch.

If costs were really as low as you are claiming there would be at least one company in the world that would charge a standard retail mark-up on these items and move a tonne more than everyone else based simply on price-point alone. However the costs to make such a device are real and thus the seemingly extremely high retail prices will remain as such.

[Jeff @ May 23rd 2008 12:39PM]

wtf is "technologyl"?

oh.

i hate improper use of exclamation points.

[m.edgar @ May 24th 2008 1:35AM]

And all I need is a cheap(-ish) 16gig one for my main OS....