Sandisk unveils new, faster, bigger laptop SSDs

Last year's proliferation of itty bitty and skinny laptops also helped to drive the proliferation of SSDs, and if Sandisk's latest announcement is any indicator that popularity could really pay off this year. The company has announced a new line of 2.5-inch and 1.8-inch SSDs for laptops of various sizes. The three new models come in 60GB, 120GB, and 240GB flavors, priced at $149, $249, and $499 respectively. Great values, by the sounds, and with 200MB/sec read and 140MB/sec writes, great performance, too. We can't wait to do some evaluating of our own when these start appearing inside laptops sometime toward the middle of this year.

[Coolty @ Jan 8th 2009 12:07PM]

Nice, for $249 I can replace the 120gb sata ide drive in my laptop with a SSD? Sign me up

[Waveblade @ Jan 8th 2009 12:09PM]

And get super fast load times as a result :)

[Jeff R @ Jan 8th 2009 1:19PM]

want.

[zioncat @ Jan 8th 2009 1:41PM]

Don't be crazy why would I pay 250 bucks for 120 GB vs 500 GB sata for way less than that on ebay.

[Andir3.0 @ Jan 8th 2009 2:29PM]

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.

[sr @ Jan 8th 2009 7:18PM]

^^^ 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.

[Poom @ Jan 8th 2009 12:10PM]

So the capacity of SSDs do not have to be base 2 number like previously?

[arash @ Jan 8th 2009 12:19PM]

no it is base on 4GB chips,60GB=15*(4GB)

[Bender Bending Rodriguez @ Jan 8th 2009 12:26PM]

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.

[Poom @ Jan 8th 2009 2:22PM]

Woah thanks for the explanation.

[msalivar @ Jan 8th 2009 11:11PM]

Also, most SSD manufacturers seem to be setting aside some number of cells to replace failed ones in current or coming generations.

[bandigolo @ Jan 8th 2009 12:11PM]

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.

[404 @ Jan 8th 2009 12:19PM]

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.

[Wwhat @ Jan 8th 2009 12:26PM]

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.

[Stereotype @ Jan 8th 2009 12:36PM]

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

[Stereotype @ Jan 8th 2009 12:37PM]

@404...exactly...drat you got to it before I finished typing mine. :P

[bandigolo @ Jan 8th 2009 1:10PM]

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.

[Tony @ Jan 8th 2009 1:31PM]

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.

[Joe @ Jan 8th 2009 3:43PM]

@404 Yes you've got it completely :-)

Though I think you meant "let someone else leap", it's us who will be looking! :-)

[sr @ Jan 8th 2009 7:24PM]

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.

[Boarderwoot @ Jan 8th 2009 12:11PM]

"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.

[Macbeth @ Jan 8th 2009 12:20PM]

bad grammar: the 'until' need to be nixed or reworded to "We can't wait until [we can] do some evaluating of our own..."

[Tarnation @ Jan 8th 2009 12:12PM]

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.

[ScOObyDoo @ Jan 8th 2009 12:18PM]

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.

[Gnormie @ Jan 8th 2009 12:16PM]

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.

[Ogo @ Jan 8th 2009 1:22PM]

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.

[Macbeth @ Jan 8th 2009 12:17PM]

I know what I'm getting myself for Christmas.

[absinthe party @ Jan 8th 2009 12:52PM]

A calendar!

[Ogo @ Jan 8th 2009 1:25PM]

Well I have to give you credit for planning ahead.

[Karn Eggie @ Jan 8th 2009 12:20PM]

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 ... ?

[Bill @ Jan 8th 2009 12:23PM]

Guess we shoud skip that $900 upgrade (for a 256GB SSD) on the new 17" MacBook Pro.

[Oli D @ Jan 8th 2009 12:27PM]

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!

[helloUser @ Jan 8th 2009 12:37PM]

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.

[Kumar @ Jan 8th 2009 1:21PM]

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. ;)

[pball_inuyaha @ Jan 8th 2009 7:24PM]

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

[Itchy Pajamas @ Jan 8th 2009 12:37PM]

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.

[TavisJohn @ Jan 8th 2009 12:40PM]

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.

[Vidikron @ Jan 8th 2009 12:47PM]

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.

[Vidikron @ Jan 8th 2009 12:47PM]

*4X in capacity

[TavisJohn @ Jan 8th 2009 1:42PM]

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.

[sr @ Jan 8th 2009 7:27PM]

^^^ Whatever. 7200rpm 2.5" 320GB drives are less than $100 now.

[TavisJohn @ Jan 8th 2009 10:13PM]

I was focusing on 250gig.. As that is the largest of the SSD drives listed in the article.

[Kris120890 @ Jan 8th 2009 12:42PM]

Thats £164 for a 120GB for an SSD. I might wait until 250GB SSDs are the same price.

[wud_e @ Jan 8th 2009 12:44PM]

So around August when Win7(Gold, Final) comes out these should be cheaper and a great upgrade for my laptop. ;)

[Thorny @ Jan 8th 2009 12:44PM]

Is it safe to presume that those SSD issues with delayed/slow writes are a thing of the past?

[Casper42 @ Jan 8th 2009 9:06PM]

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.

[Casper42 @ Jan 8th 2009 9:17PM]

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

[Jeebus @ Jan 9th 2009 3:05PM]

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.

[Paul @ Jan 8th 2009 1:04PM]

So, can I get a 240G 1.8" SSD to swap into my trusty 80G video iPod?

[Casper42 @ Jan 8th 2009 9:19PM]

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.