Sandisk unveils new, faster, bigger laptop SSDs
By Tim Stevens 
posted Jan 8th 2009 12:01PM
posted Jan 8th 2009 12:01PM
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Nice, for $249 I can replace the 120gb sata ide drive in my laptop with a SSD? Sign me up
And get super fast load times as a result :)
want.
Don't be crazy why would I pay 250 bucks for 120 GB vs 500 GB sata for way less than that on ebay.
Maybe you don't need 500 GB on your laptop and would prefer the speed?
Most people don't NEED 500G drives. Even if they do, they use it for storage and you could get that with a NAS or USB drive at home for archival purposes.
^^^ Exactly. Some people can only think in terms of bigger is better. What do I care if all my data is on a home server and all I really need is 32GB to store the OS and perform the basic tasks I most perform with super speed. I have 24GB on my drive right now and I haven't even cleaned it to remove excess data yet. My terabytes of data are accessible when I want.
So the capacity of SSDs do not have to be base 2 number like previously?
no it is base on 4GB chips,60GB=15*(4GB)
yes, they do, but only per chip. The chips themselves don't have to follow exponential growth. So a bunch of 64gb* (8GB) chips can be put together in whatever number you wish, so 30 of these chips would be 240GB.
Also, manufacturers also have the option of using a BASE-10 system for marketing their capacities, the way HDD manufactures have been doing for decades. This means that as sized increase, OEMs can advertise a certain capacity in actual bytes that technically be x-many Gigabytes(SI) but would fall short if using the BASE-2 gigabyte(JEDEC) or gibibyte(IEC).
* Used 64gb as an example, I have no idea what density or capacity SanDisk is using.
Woah thanks for the explanation.
Also, most SSD manufacturers seem to be setting aside some number of cells to replace failed ones in current or coming generations.
It's always nice to have state-of-the-art technology, but anyone who plunked down hundreds of dollars for those 1st Gen SSD (32, 64 GB) should be kicking themselves right now.
Anybody that plunks down for 1st gen gear inevitably ends up kicking themselves anyway.
Remember when 256mb USB drives were the next big thing? And when HD DVD was going to replace DVD?
New Tech Rule number 1: unless you've got far too much money, always let someone else look before you leap.
Over here I only see 1st generation devices/prices in shops so far, bit slow this place, sometimes I wonder if shops want to sell stuff at all.
True..but those who buy these now will be kicking themselves in a couple months when bigger ones come out for cheaper...its just the way technology is working right now. Products get bigger (memory wise not physical size, which tends to get smaller), better, and cheaper and an amazingly fast rate...there is no way to "wait till the best and cheapest" ones comes out b/c by then something better will be out...its kinda a lose-lose situation for us who don't have tons of money...but you just have to get one and then use it for a long time.... :P
@404...exactly...drat you got to it before I finished typing mine. :P
I have no problem paying a reasonable cost for reasonably "future-useful" 2nd or 3rd Gen, even knowing damn well it will be inferior within 6 months. Big difference between that and paying exorbitant amounts for 1st Gen units that are guaranteed to be "future-useless" (i.e. obsolete) in 6 months.
Just like I can live with my Sammy DLP or my 2.4Ghz Quad Core processor for years to come, I can live with 256+GB SSD. How anyone can survive with less than 100GB in this day and age, I have no idea.
That's why you never put down money for 1st generation stuff. You wait for them to workout all the kinks and performance issues, as well as price, then you make the jump.
@404 Yes you've got it completely :-)
Though I think you meant "let someone else leap", it's us who will be looking! :-)
Do you think I care about this MLC solution coming in June? I am still ordering a 32GB SLC tomorrow. Despite this news of whatever sequential transfer speeds. Show some I/O data on random writes and maybe I'll care. I doubt it will even match the Intel MLC, leave alone SLC. Yes I know the Intel has it's points like sequential transfer, but SLC is always king of random reads and writes.
"We can't wait until to do some evaluating of our own..." I don't know what it is, but something about that just doesn't sound right.
bad grammar: the 'until' need to be nixed or reworded to "We can't wait until [we can] do some evaluating of our own..."
At this point in the game everybody seems to be manufacturing SSDs and the size has gone up way faster than traditional hard drives did. So, why isn't the price dropping? You hear about all these companies producing larger and larger drive sizes, but they never slash the prices they just keep doubling the price each time they double capacity.
I also wonder about physical size. These companies keep trying to one up each other. Imagine if one company released a 3.5" SSD they could pack it well over current limits.
Really? You think 240GB for $499 is expensive? We went into 2008 with a 64GB SSD costing the same price.
SSD drive prices have plummeted in the past 12 months.
No price drops?
When SSD's first became available to consumers 30GB+ drives cost in excess of $500. Now a 30GB can be had from OCZ in the region of $130.
Macbook Air SSD was $999 for the 64GB Jan 2008, July 2008 64GB $599, and Nov 2008 128GB $599.
If Apple is dropping the prices that much and making upgrades without charging extra the price must be dropping.
I know what I'm getting myself for Christmas.
A calendar!
Well I have to give you credit for planning ahead.
yea but now sandisk has given you 2x that with 60GB at 150 which will be a few $ less when it hits outlets like newegg ... so the prices are falling precipitously ... SLC or MLC ... ?
Guess we shoud skip that $900 upgrade (for a 256GB SSD) on the new 17" MacBook Pro.
1.8" SSDs rock my world
A few days ago my friend broke the screen on his Ipod classic and complained to me to ask if i could fix it, when i popped it open i found he had a 32Gb SLC SSD inside that he had put in for an upgrade 1 month ago at great expense, he didn't know what it was so went for the "reassuringly expensive mindset".
I have bought it off him for £90 and am booting vista off of it in my laptop, never seen such quick load speeds and thats only 100r/w!
Will these, or are these, SSDs available in 3.5" form to put into a desktop computer? I wouldn't mind paying for two 60gb SSDs of this kind and RAIDing the two for faster performance.
I'm sure you can find an adapter that will work so you can slide it into a 5.25 bay. Or just duct tape the thing in there somewhere. ;)
yeah I agree with the first reply. I believe there was a 5.25 drive bay adapter on engadget that holds two 2.5 in hdds or ssds
Tempting!
I'm waiting for someone to report on the 240 performance in a new MacBook Pro. When the SSDs reach (or exceed) the 320GB that I currently have in my "heavy alu", I'll definitely do the swap.
Sure would be nice if they'd do a 1.8" 120GB PATA slim enough to swap into my first-gen MacBook Air.
I will be more interested when the price is closer to normal HD prices.
When I can get a 250gig SATA 2.5" drive for $75.00.... I guess I'll stick to standard HD's for now.
I can see where in some cases getting an SSD drive would be a good idea, for small notebooks and such for people who really need the additional battery life.
But at those prices I can not see this replacing HD's yet.
I'm waiting for some for desktop use.... but using the 250GB for comparison they're going to have to get at least 4X and 1/5 as expensive before they'll be of any use to me. Maybe I'll consider a smaller one as an OS drive, but I need lots of storage and only buy 1TB drives these days.
*4X in capacity
I tend to stick to 1tb to 1.5tb external drives. My laptop has 2 hdd's right now @120gig each. I would love to get 1tb drives for my laptop... But they are WAY to expensive. However I could afford a couple of 250gig 2.5" drives.
^^^ Whatever. 7200rpm 2.5" 320GB drives are less than $100 now.
I was focusing on 250gig.. As that is the largest of the SSD drives listed in the article.
Thats £164 for a 120GB for an SSD. I might wait until 250GB SSDs are the same price.
So around August when Win7(Gold, Final) comes out these should be cheaper and a great upgrade for my laptop. ;)
Is it safe to presume that those SSD issues with delayed/slow writes are a thing of the past?
As long as they dont use that specific JMicron controller that like half the cheap MLC drives in the past year used, then it should be fine.
But I find that determining what controller chip and NAND Modules a particular vendor uses is like playing Where's Waldo.
And I'm sure its even more difficult when the product isn't actually on the market yet.
If someone finds out for sure, PLEASE link here.
PS: For those who may not know, the specific controller seems to be the JMicron JMF602.
Read pages 6, 7 and 8 here: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403&p=6
Wasn't there also some OS limitation that prevented full advantage of SSDs? Something like the OS expects HDDs to be slow, so they do stuff that is unnecessary of SSDs? Enlighten me.
So, can I get a 240G 1.8" SSD to swap into my trusty 80G video iPod?
Doubtful. From the marketing pic above, I would say only the 60GB will come in the 1.8" form factor.
Past a certain point they just can't fit anymore NAND flash modules in a 1.8" package.
I wish someone would make a laptop SSD with an ATA interface for my older laptop. Just max out the ATA133 speeds, and I'd be quite happy with it. New life for old gear!
Ask and you shall receive:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/30/runcores-1-8-inch-netbook-ssds-now-shipping-2-5-inch-256gb-edi/
The problem is even though the picture shows a standard PATA pinout, the actual product uses a ZIF connector.
Sandisk also seems to have a similar product:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/sandisk-outs-gen-2-pssds-for-blossoming-netbook-sector/
finally, ssd's are getting to a pricepoint that is close to acceptable... 50 dollars (or so) cheaper, and they'll be universal
The G3 SSDs are more than five times faster than the fastest 7,200 RPM HDDs and more than twice as fast as SSDs shipping in 2008, clocking in at 40,000 vRPM1 and anticipated sequential performance of 200MB/s read and 140MB/s write3. The G3 SSDs provide a Long-term Data Endurance (LDE) of 160 terabytes written (TBW) for the 240GB version, sufficient for over 100 years of typical user usage.
...
In addition, the SanDisk G3 SSDs will be available on sandisk.com for do-it-yourself (DIY) enthusiasts.
^^^ And Bose speakers are the world's best.
Of course they don't list the random write speed which for me is one of the most important metrics. The 64GB MLC from OCZ I tested was able to sustain a whole .1MB/s of random writes. A Samsung SLC was better at 1MB/s. The only useful device so far has been the intel MLC at 8MB/s. Haven't tested the intel SLC yet.
Well, to most people who aren't used to anything faster than a 7200RPM HD, ~1MB/s would be more than fine. It's the .1MB/s transfer rate and incredibly high latency of most MLC drives that are the problem. Intel's MLC architecture is a breakthrough when it comes to random writes. But if SanDisk could give at least ~1MB/s and decent latency on random writes at less than half the price of Intel, it will be more than good enough for most people.
One of these bad boys with a clean Win 7 install should be very responsive.
Well, I think in the future Hard Drives will only be used for backup.
Looks SSDs are finally replacing HDs... I can use a 240GB drive, that's big enough.
I will have to forego carrying all four seasons of Doctor Who with me at all times but I think I can live with that. I will gladly trade it for the speed and reliability (? - hopefully) of a SSD.
I think you can safely delete that episode with the olympics.
My build is running on 18GB used right now. Win7, with office and a couple other programs. Even after moving over music and the like, 120GB would be plenty. Fast, low latency 120GB for that price? Count me in.
Wow, just to comment on the state of the industry, I remember when we were all looking at $2500+ SSDs on here all the time.. And even if the cheapest SSDs aren't the fastest, it is AMAZING how fast the prices have come down.
It had to be about a year ago or maybe two and someone was bitching about the price of a certain SSD. Well I did the math and it was something $15/Gigabyte, and I said just wait a couple of years and they'll be down to $5 per gigabyte.
The Sandisk models above are insane! 120GB for $249, 240GB for $499... Thats almost down to $2/Gigabyte!