OCZ reveals Core Series SATA II 2.5 SSDs: 128GB for $479

¡Aye carumba! OCZ Technology just made us do a double take this morning with the introduction of its all new Core Series SATA II 2.5 SSDs. Hailed as the "world's first truly affordable high-performance SSD for consumers," these drives check in at $169 (32GB), $259 (64GB) and $479 (128GB), which -- as you undoubtedly recognize -- are amazing price points. Each unit utilizes NAND flash technology, possesses a 1.5-million hour mean time before failure and delivers 120 - 143Mbps read / 80 - 93Mbps write speeds. The sub-0.35ms seek times are also worthy of a tip of the hat, and the low power consumption just makes things unnecessarily sweeter. OCZ doesn't mention a definitive ship date, but we're hoping that "available" mention means "right now."

[Via Electronista]

[Ace b @ Jul 1st 2008 9:25AM]

Ahhhh Yeah!!!

[rock99rock @ Jul 1st 2008 9:50AM]

My sentiments exactly.

This is a HUGE leap forward in terms of price/capacity. Although, it is only truly joyful if the tech is released sooner rather than later. This will be a welcome replacement for the HDD in the carputer.

On another note, after clicking the "read" link, I realized that was the first time in more than 10 years that i had visited an aol.com url. Wicked.

[kal326 @ Jul 1st 2008 9:50AM]

Indeed, the SSD isn't the only thing that just hit a solid state......

[neofolklore @ Jul 1st 2008 11:05AM]

@kal

WOW, just wow.

[Chuckles McGee @ Jul 1st 2008 7:13PM]

Is that really in American dollars? No crazy euro/british pound misquote?

[eney @ Jul 1st 2008 9:27AM]

wow. at last we have affordable ssd's. i hope dell will switch to them also.

[ethana2 @ Jul 1st 2008 12:02PM]

No, we hope dell will give us /choice/. It's all about choice.

And I'd rather they work on the software end of that first, it's not like the companies that make mechanical hard drives are evil..

[Basic @ Jul 1st 2008 1:40PM]

I overheard the results of a Dell volume sales call. They're still spewing the conventional wisdom of 2005:

"SSD's are slow, short-lived, and unreliable" --Dell

[BobTurbo @ Jul 1st 2008 9:29AM]

Holy cow, that is too good to be true. This would mean I would have no need for a traditional HDD any more.

[Jeremy K. @ Jul 1st 2008 9:30AM]

I wouldn't say affordable, but it is cheaper.

[Esteban @ Jul 3rd 2008 4:07PM]

Agreed. I'm not sure if the prices really qualify as affordable yet, especially because I also think that SSD technology has quite a way to go still. But I will admit, this is a pretty large leap forward.

[Kevin @ Jul 1st 2008 9:31AM]

Wow, those prices surprised me. Still a bit high for me to jump, but a really great improvement. I hope they are stable!

[Hello Moto @ Jul 1st 2008 9:31AM]

Hmmm. Not bad. A 64GB harddrive would be more then enough for me. At $259 its still a bit expensive, but I guess in a year or two when they are half the current price I will have to buy myself a present.

[Ellianth @ Jul 1st 2008 11:02AM]

Can you buy me one too? :'(

[robothouse @ Jul 1st 2008 9:34AM]

Somewhat reasonably priced SSDs? THE FUTURE HAS ARRIVED!

[Phil @ Jul 1st 2008 9:36AM]

Could this drive replace the PS3 hard drive? Then the PS3 would be quieter because it will not be as hot.

[Timothy Sottek @ Jul 1st 2008 9:37AM]

Tom's Hardware just did a recent comparison between SSD power consumption and traditional platter drives.

If you're going to put that in a laptop beware: SSDs drain batteries FASTER than platter drives!

[BobTurbo @ Jul 1st 2008 9:54AM]

"SSDs drain batteries FASTER than platter drives!"

Correction: The SSDs tested using TH's methodology did not perform as well as the platter HDD.

[Timothy Sottek @ Jul 1st 2008 10:08AM]

Correction, part deux:

"However, we have discovered that the power savings aren’t there: in fact, battery runtimes actually decrease if you use a flash SSD."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-hdd-battery,1955.html

[BobTurbo @ Jul 1st 2008 10:19AM]

Nope, I don't think you understand yet. Let me come back tomorrow and see if anything has changed.

[Hilter @ Jul 1st 2008 12:33PM]

TUrob teach me your ways

"However, we have discovered that the power savings aren’t there: in fact, battery runtimes actually decrease if you use a flash SSD."

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-hdd-battery,1955.html

[Timothy Sottek @ Jul 1st 2008 12:41PM]

Thanks, Jeff.

I didn't think about that. I appreciate you taking the time to respond respectfully, unlike the antecedent.

[Hung @ Jul 1st 2008 12:58PM]

"Nope, I don't think you understand yet. Let me come back tomorrow and see if anything has changed."

I don't know. It may not have been respectful, but that was pretty damn pro.

[Visionep @ Jul 1st 2008 2:56PM]

That's a good theory about the system being taxed more because the processor was in use more. Too bad it is an untested shot in the dark that doesn't hold up against the existing data at hand.

If you actually read the TH article they "measure" the usage of the drives and show how much each one is using in idle and when active.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-hdd-battery,1955-14.html

You can see from their chart that several of the SSD's have higher power consumption than a normal drive. They note that since the SSD's don't have any levels of power usage between "idle" and "active" they tend to use more power for the same amount of user activities.

[Matt @ Jul 1st 2008 9:41AM]

SSD's in RAID 0, here I come :)

[IT-Accountant @ Jul 1st 2008 9:43AM]

Great Scott!

[IowaSuby @ Jul 1st 2008 9:44AM]

We need a PATA version!

[lawyer bird @ Jul 1st 2008 5:19PM]

no.

[BratPAQ @ Jul 1st 2008 9:46AM]

if they can make it smaller, i wouldnt mind having a 128GB nand flash memory on my PDA or iPod

[Josh @ Jul 1st 2008 9:48AM]

171 years before it fails? Damn.

[Kurian @ Jul 1st 2008 9:56AM]

There's no reason it couldn't randomly stop working, or for some NAND cells to die. Its just much more unlikely to fail than a mechanical drive.

[Topionic @ Jul 1st 2008 11:03AM]

Yeah, they started testing it in 1837 and it failed right now.

[neofolklore @ Jul 1st 2008 11:07AM]

@Topionic

AHAHAHA i'm going to start saying that about everything

I'm gonna even go back to CDs that supposedly have 'shelf life' of 50 years.

[NightShade15 @ Jul 1st 2008 5:29PM]

@Neo

Well, the other thing that has a shelf life of 50 years is Duct Tape... Which my great grandfather had some in his basement when I was little, tried to pick it up, and basically turned to sand. I don't think I've ever been more freaked out in my life.

[Mischa Lockton @ Jul 1st 2008 9:51AM]

Well, it's only an announcement for now- just checked Newegg and the SSD prices seemed to have notched up from when I was browsing a couple of days ago... an OCZ will set you back $1049 for 64 GB (that's with a $100 rebate) ... so please hurry up, future!

[Peter Graham @ Jul 1st 2008 9:53AM]

Says on Play.com that these drives will be available for release on 07/07/2008 for £320 for the 128GB

[Luke @ Jul 1st 2008 9:58AM]

Seems the specs on these units are not entirely known.

http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39565

Unknown if they are SLC or MLC and some controversy on the write speeds.

Could be a real deal breaker.

[The Joker @ Jul 1st 2008 10:03AM]

The drives are already out in Europe. Read/Write speeds are the same as listed in the press release:

http://www.kmelektronik.de/main_site/?SiteType=Shop&type=shop&ArtNr=19081

[coffee @ Jul 1st 2008 10:57AM]

At that price point, it's very likely MLC. Still a good price for MLC drive of that size, but not a huge jump. Last I checked, the 128gb SSD MLC drives were mid $500s, so it's a nice drop, just not revolutionary.

[www.ssdforums.com @ Jul 1st 2008 5:19PM]

My guess would be MLC. But the differences between MLC and SLC from a long term standpoint may not be as big of a concern as originally thought by the consumer market.... Time will tell

[Xen Wildman @ Jul 1st 2008 10:01AM]

Drop one of these in a PS3 and have linux use a file as additional memory and you're set.

[Saosin @ Jul 1st 2008 10:17AM]

"120-143Mbs/ 80-93Mbs read/write speeds"

I really, really hope that's a typo, otherwise that would mean 15-18MBps reads and 10-12MBps writes. That would really suck.

[w00t @ Jul 1st 2008 10:19AM]

It's meant to MByte/sec, which is very very good for the price.

Finally the day when I can multi-task without the constant grinding of mechanical drives is in sight! Time to start saving :)

[Saosin @ Jul 1st 2008 10:32AM]

How do you know this? Are you an employee at OCZ?

Sorry for the scepticism, but considering the price points I feel it's justified.

[nikster @ Jul 1st 2008 10:34AM]

It's definitely MByte/s. I want.

[Jesse @ Jul 1st 2008 11:24AM]

It's a typo. When have you known marketing idiots to know the subtle but major difference between MBs and the lowly Mbs.

[Carl M @ Jul 1st 2008 2:09PM]

The news release on the OCZ website shows MB, not Mb.

The other release was probably edited by someone who didn't understand the difference.

[Saosin @ Jul 1st 2008 2:37PM]

Yay, I think I might finally go SSD =D

[Saosin @ Jul 1st 2008 2:37PM]

Yay, I think I might finally go SSD =D

[huh @ Jul 1st 2008 10:27AM]

I guess these could be harmful to the WD Raptor line, no wonder they came out with a 300gb version.