OCZ reveals Core Series SATA II 2.5 SSDs: 128GB for $479
By Darren Murph 
posted Jul 1st 2008 9:18AM
posted Jul 1st 2008 9:18AM
[Via Electronista]
posted Jul 1st 2008 9:18AM
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
wow. at last we have affordable ssd's. i hope dell will switch to them also.
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..
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
Ahhhh Yeah!!!
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.
Indeed, the SSD isn't the only thing that just hit a solid state......
@kal
WOW, just wow.
Is that really in American dollars? No crazy euro/british pound misquote?
This is fantastic news for we consumers and i am more than surprised at the massive fall in prices. This is fantastic. Theres got to be some sort of trick somewhere. I'll wait for a better price point for the 128GB.
Holy cow, that is too good to be true. This would mean I would have no need for a traditional HDD any more.
I wouldn't say affordable, but it is cheaper.
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.
Somewhat reasonably priced SSDs? THE FUTURE HAS ARRIVED!
Wow, those prices surprised me. Still a bit high for me to jump, but a really great improvement. I hope they are stable!
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.
Can you buy me one too? :'(
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!
"SSDs drain batteries FASTER than platter drives!"
Correction: The SSDs tested using TH's methodology did not perform as well as the platter HDD.
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
Nope, I don't think you understand yet. Let me come back tomorrow and see if anything has changed.
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
Thanks, Jeff.
I didn't think about that. I appreciate you taking the time to respond respectfully, unlike the antecedent.
"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.
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.
Could this drive replace the PS3 hard drive? Then the PS3 would be quieter because it will not be as hot.
SSD's in RAID 0, here I come :)
Great Scott!
We need a PATA version!
no.
if they can make it smaller, i wouldnt mind having a 128GB nand flash memory on my PDA or iPod
171 years before it fails? Damn.
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.
Yeah, they started testing it in 1837 and it failed right now.
@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.
@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.
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!
Says on Play.com that these drives will be available for release on 07/07/2008 for £320 for the 128GB
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 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
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.
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
Drop one of these in a PS3 and have linux use a file as additional memory and you're set.
"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.
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 :)
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.
It's definitely MByte/s. I want.
It's a typo. When have you known marketing idiots to know the subtle but major difference between MBs and the lowly Mbs.
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.
Yay, I think I might finally go SSD =D
Yay, I think I might finally go SSD =D