Intel 80GB SSD price cut by one-third, still very expensive
By Ross Miller 
posted February 6th 2009 5:27PM
posted February 6th 2009 5:27PM
posted February 6th 2009 5:27PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
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.
Yay! Too bad I still can't afford it...
I guess there will be many people in our case, not purchasing due to the high prices! Will take more than a 30% cut to get massive purchases from customers.
Ah! Just bought one 8 days ago!!
Paid $320, Thanks iOffer.com!
Most teenagers don't have $765 laying around for an SSD...
Tell me about it, I built my rig with $820 adding one of these 160's would double the price, at which point RAID would be faster, better, and cheaper
If you're building a rig, I really don't see the point. You can get a 150GB VelociRaptor for about $150 now, and they're rather quiet once you pull them from the sled. Even quieter if you suspend them. On the other hand, I'm really tempted and trying to make the finances work for my X61s since it solves a lot more problems there. Too bad I'm only making about 3/5 what I was making a year ago, or it would be no question.
if it were the 160 gig at ~$400, i'd bite.
I'd like 120-160GB for my OS hard drive. And when they get down to about $125 I'll probably bite.
These companies are showing that they can improve the speeds significantly with each edition, so by the time the prices drop enough, you'll see some drives that will blow the pants off these current SSDs.
If that we're true I'd pick up one too. I think I'd have to make over 100k to even think about spending $765 dollars on a drive for storage.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to compare the price to other SSDs instead magnetic platter based one? Intel drives are still more expensive then other SSDs but they're also the best performing by a decent margin at that.
Agreed. I really don't think price-per-gigabyte is relevant at the moment - people obviously aren't buying SSDs because they want massive storage space. If you insist on storing a gigantic porrn collection, you'll be using the old-fashioned drives for quite a while.
It just has to have a 'reasonable' amount of space for a 'reasonable' price - not compare to old-fashioned HDs. Right about now, reasonable is probably in the 100GB range, not 2TB. Unfortunately, this drive is smaller than that and still doesn't really manage a 'reasonable' price. And even the off-brand SSDs aren't that cheap yet.
Maybe eventually SSDs will compete with HD on cost-per-gigabyte, which would allow them to reach the porn-addict market (okay I'm being sarcastic - there are other good reasons to have very large drives, such as storing HD video that isn't porn). But that's not going to be for a long time to come.
Intel is making HUGE money on these drives, whether people realize it or not. Ask anyone who's privy to Intel's Retail Edge Program; the last "deal" was getting one of these drives for $399 when the retail price was still $600+. You think they're losing money on that?
Intel priced the drives as high as they thought they could get away with. Obviously, they couldn't.
ok... what is the cost of making an SSD like this?
It can't honestly be THAT expensive?
Wouldn't it be more cost effective to mass produce more and sell at a more reasonable price?
Well, that's exactly what is happening, but obviously it needs time, like another year or so.
FYI
16GB microSDHC $60 = $3.75/GB
Intel 160GB for $765 = $4.78/GB
try sticking 10 microsd cards in your computer...
FAIL
MaX, you heard the joke about the roof?
Nevermind, it's way over your head. Sorta like fieldcar's point...
wildman_91, care to explain fieldcar's point to the rest of us?
I don't knw all there is to know about SSDs and why they're priced so high.. but I think it's not all about the capacity, the controllers and read write optimizations also drive the cost.
Seeing how space isn't that tight in an SSD, I'd go as far and bring up that a high-speed 16GB SDHC card (not microSD) can currently be bought for $30, or $1.87 per GB.
Of course you have to add a controller, and nobody's going to run a 10-card freaky RAID array of some sort -- but the point is, flash memory is now cheap enough that somebody, somewhere, should be able to offer a decent 80GB SSD for less than $200.
You're only thinking about the marginal cost to produce 1 unit. You have to consider other factors. This is obvious for new technologies where the R&D costs are a big factor of the MSRP especially if the R&D results in a clear competitive advantage (speed) as this drive does.
There are decent drives for under $200, but the Intel drives are industry leaders as far as MLC goes. We'll see it trickle down, but unfortunately, only as JMicron fixes their controllers, or someone else lowballs without the issues.
The intel X25 series SSD's are high performance SSD's, targeted at gamers and those with high perf needs, and their numbers hold up at the upper end of the pack when put into tests. Comparing it with 10X SDHC cards is pretty silly, because the performance won't be quite up there. That said, there are devices out there which let you convert multiple flash cards into an SSD, though I don't think there's one which'll do 10 of them. They are certainly plausible for a budget SSD.
Typical flash drives aren't made from the same tech that SSDs are. The important thing here is speed and write cycles, which aren't THAT much of a worry with typical flash. You have to realize that there are different uses for SSDs than flash drives, just like how a 3.5" 15,000 RPM drive has a different use than a 1.8" 4200RPM drive.
Same general principle, but very different results.
You've not made sense for the past week and yet you still speak shit.
"Looks like Intel is give"
way to go ace.
"a more reasonable -- yet still very exorbitant -- price tag."
"it doesn't take a rocket scientist"
telling us the price of apples is still way higher than the cost of oranges, and that YOU still find apples too expensive is really useful information. then topping it off with an up to date "doesn't take a rocket scientist" metaphor. great job. like watching fred flintstone bowl.
off ya go.
Comparing traditional HDDs to SSDs is perfectly valid. Each time I hear news like this I make the comparison myself. I know SSDs are the future, but right now gap in size and price of mechanical vs SSD is too much to ignore. In fact, I'd argue that this comparison is the first comparison made by most people considering a new drive. Comparing SSD vs SSD would likely be the second comparison for most people once the decisions is made to pull the trigger on an SSD.
Comparing HDD / SSD is certainly valid, comparing 3.5" HDD to 2.5" SSD not so much.. there's a big price gap even between just 3.5 / 2.5 HDD's. You can't even put them in the same machine, why the comparison?
Agree with Vidikron and also with David.
THIS
If I write for engadget can I compares apples and oranges and be considered wise?
"You can't even put them in the same machine, why the comparison?"
Depends on the machine. Naturally you can't put a 3.5" in a laptop, but many people are putting SSDs into desktops. Just because SSDs are all 2.5" doesn't mean they are limited to laptops and other portables. Just visit any tech forum (e.g. Anandtech) and look for SSD threads. Much of the discussion revolves around purchasing decisions for desktops. SSDs are the future for both platforms.
@ Basic: When looking at a basket of fruit you compare:
Apples and Oranges: Function - supply sustenance.
HDDs and SSDs: Function - preserve data in a powered down state.
Of course consumers would find it necessary to compare the technologies. Apples and Oranges are different genetically, and so are SSDs and HDDs, but their function is the same, hence the comparison.
I'm digging the lip-prints on the drive. Someone REALLY likes that drive...
That's the camera, you can just make out the outline, The SSD has a slight shine to it's casing
Obama's promise of chaaaaange = SSD price cuts.
Come on obama!
lol Good catch.. looks like there's a nose print too.
that was for Mike
The problem I have with SSDs isn't just the price/GB, although that's a huge factor, it's also a question of why?
I know a lot of people have a hate on for spinning media, but in the case of hard drives it really does seem (so far) to given a hard to beat price/capacity ratio.
There's speed - and in general, SSD is faster, but what are people doing that needs that kind of speed? Most computer use tends to be bursty, not continuous, so for the vast majority of people, increases in hard drive speed are driven by OS requirements more than application requirements.
There's reliability - and that's a much fuzzier issue. SSDs wear and even the manufacturers argue for a 3-4 year lifespan 'in typical use'. HDs wear too, but I have hard drives that are over 10 years old still working. On the flip side, because capacities in HDs increase fairly regularly for about the same price, it's not unreasonable to upgrade your HDs every 3-4 years or less. In terms of hard reliability, I've never lost a hard drive in a laptop in normal use (or even some pretty abnormal uses). There are a lot of iPods and Zunes out there with hard drives, they seem to keep going.
I also carry severy pocket drives (2.5" hard drives in small cases with USB interfaces) and with ONE exception, they've gone through airports, bus rides, being carried in a shoulder bag all day, every day and being banged around... and they've never had a hiccough. The one exception? A 120GB drive in an aluminum case that I accidentally dropped onto a hardwood floor...
To me, SSD would have to be cheaper than HD, or I would need some specific task for which SSD is just simply worth the extra price before I'd ever consider it.
Boot-up times of OS and also programs is heavily reduced on SSD's; this is very noticeable to most users. Have you ever seen itunes in vista? It actually starts before you finish a game of bridge with an SSD. From my experience, a decent ssd halves the OS start time and reduces most programs' startup to almost instant.
You have a point, that OS and other software don't take advantage of the faster speeds of SSD right now. You probably have other points, too, but I'm too drunk, and way too worn out to read all your post. But to expand on your point, more than to counter it: OS and other software have had to limit themselves since the beginning of computing in order to mask the impact of storage devices being far slower than processors and volatile memory. We will see software taking advantage of faster storage devices once they have some market share, and already, with existing software, moving to even 10k or 15k mechanical hard drives has a huge impact on some software. Even on general desktop use, once using a 10k drive, going back is difficult.
The plain truth is, solid state devices have a much higher ceiling (and I'm not just talking flash, here) than mechanical devices by their very nature. We're just getting to the point where you can get an SSD that performs better, at least in most situations, than the fastest mechanical drives. But already, we're to a point where it makes a computer a pleasure to use instead of cumbersome when using more advanced software.
interesting, they didnt even bother to shoop the camera reflection out. looks like a Canon SLR.
Has he ever made sense?
Intel 80GB SSD price cut by one-third, still very expensive.
The company has slashed the 2.5-inch 80GB X25-M from $595 in September to now $390. http://www.laptops-battery.co.uk/dell-inspiron-6000-battery.htm
Yes if its price reduce 50%, i just can put it into my select.
Intel has priced the X25-M far below its actual value.
Read the Amazon customer reviews for the product to try to get an idea of what an amazing difference the order-of-magnitude increase in random access performance can make. You are comparing the wrong things.. its not the size of the drive, its the performance.
The thousands of dollars in RAID controllers and CPU upgrades you people are making before buying a drive like this are a testament to your lack of current technical knowledge. Hardware evolves quickly. This drive and a few others have changed the game. You will all realize it eventually.
You don't need 100GB for your boot drive. You don't even need 16GB. The only reason most of you think you need so much storage is for movies you are downloading illegally. There isn't any reason you can't archive that type of stuff on a regular hard drive.
Seriously, I have a 32GB SLC SSD as my OS drive and only half of it is full even with 4.5GB of Ebooks on it. My next move will be to the top of the line 32GB Intel X25E. It will fly like nothing else. All my data is on a home server, safe and backed up as it should be.
SSD vs HD Boot Time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt6VbOY3xE0&fmt=18
Random Access Time
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=661&type=expert&pid=5
Look @ the random access time. Velociraptor is 7ms vs the SSD which is 0.1 ms. Most of the time when you're starting an application or booting an OS it's randomly accessing different parts of a HD. This is one the BIGGEST reasons why the SSD > HD.
If you're using this to store/watch movies/music you're not using the SSD to it's fullest capacity. It's like owning a Ferrari and using it to go down to the corner market. Those files should be put on a normal HD since they don't really benefit from the SSDs random access time.
How do you deal with that issue in a laptop? Have a SSD boot drive + 1.8" HD storage drive as well? I think you'd want the OS to manage that stuff in the background.
the ONLY reason for these price drops is the OCZ Vertex drives, Vertex 2 will be coming out in a few months with raid0 with 4 raided partitions, will be incredibly fast. No point buying a SSD for atleast 1yr, the prices are falling like mad and the speeds increasing like mad. Windows 7 will work nicely with it but likely wont be out till Q3 so there's just no point buying an SSD now.
anybody notice that you can see the camera in the reflection?
Yeah its been mentioned like 5 times already.
Single 'biggest impact' computer upgrade in years.
I have been steadily upgrading my home computer over the years, always keeping up with the latest graphics/cpus, etc. I stopped last year at the quadcore (Q9650) because it runs most of what i do fast enough for now (photoshop, games, compositing apps). I got an opportunity to test severals SSD drives including the OCZ v2 128GB and the Intel X25M 160GB drives. I played with both for several days and at the end of that time I wrote up my thoughts (for a distributors sales literature), returned the loaners, and went out an ordered two OCZ drives. They are now my main boot drives in both my work and home machines. The difference these drives make in day to day life are bigger than any other upgrade I have done in recent memory. Even the SLI upgrade was easy to dismiss after a few hours of gaming, but the OCZ drives continue to amaze me with how snappy everything is. I chose the OCZ over the Intel just because of price. I would have purchased the Intel drives which are noticeably faster, if they were even close to the OCZ price.