Intel further slashes SSD prices, ups production of 1.8-inch drives
By Donald Melanson 
posted Apr 28th 2009 5:56PM
posted Apr 28th 2009 5:56PM
Intel just cut a big chunk out of the MSRP on some of its SSDs a few months back, but it looks like it's already back for another go 'round, and it's also taking the opportunity to up the production on some of the models intended for netbooks and ultraportable laptops. The price cuts come to Intel's recently-fixed X25-M series of drives, with the 160GB drive dropping $100 (bringing its retail price down to $630), while the 80GB model dips a further $50 to $320, or close to half of what it originally cost when it launched back in December. What's more, while they aren't getting any cheaper just yet, Intel will reportedly be making more of its 80GB and 160GB 1.8-inch drives, which have apparently been in short supply since launching last year.
Still too expensive. But lets hope it continues.
Honestly, I think they need to halve from the prices shown.
Even half that is expensive! $160 for 80gb! I just bought a 750gb drive for $59.99. Even if you cut the price by 90%, standard HDDs will still be a lot cheaper.
@JJ: SSDs don't need to compete with HDD for price-per-gigabyte, for primary drives. Obviously for things like external data storage which are specifically about having a lot of space, HDD will continue to rule the roost for some time, but as a main drive 80GB is probably enough for most people. If you don't have external storage it just means you delete pirated video files after you watch them, that's not the end of the world.
Don't get me wrong, $320 is still very expensive, but SSD doesn't need to drop to the same price-per-gigabyte as HDs before it becomes a very attractive option. At the current price I'd certainly get one (80GB, that is) if I had the option when getting a new computer; it probably needs to come down by at least half before a lot of people would make that decision, but it's getting there.
Keep in mind Intel's SSDs are significantly more expensive than the competition from OCZ/Super Talent et al, but they are quite a bit faster, as well. Anandtech had a great article about this a while back.
Not completely true anymore. As the anandtech articles on the OCZ Vortex drives more recently (that you apparently missed) have pointed out. Until the price drops some more, I'd go with a Vertex. The minor difference in performance probably won't be missed in typical laptop usage scenarios, and the significant performance increases in things like boot time and application launch time vs. rotating media, as well as the improved reliability/performance will be noticed with either.
Personally, if Intel can build a 160GB 1.8" drive, why they don't have a 250GB or even 320GB 2.5" SSD out, I have no idea...
Don't compare it per-gigabyte to HDDs; you're getting different things, really. SSDs are still start-up disks great if you want to cut program launching and startup time by half or more; most users probably still need a traditional drive for media. A performance addition, like a second CPU or GPU, not a replacement for an existing part. In the case of laptops, you'd want an external at home if you want to store media.
Still, the 160GB is still bloody expensive but 80GB seems a little tight for a main disk. I like the Vertex's 120GB, 250 increments a lot more.
Keep in mind that 36GB ultra fast SCSI drives used to cost over $300 not even 3 years ago. These prices are very good for fast drives. Take a look at the Western Digial Raptor drive... small and pricy.
http://store.westerndigital.com/store/wdus/en_US/DisplayProductDetailsPage/productID.106595700
You can compare it to whatever you want, but, price a few of these... the MBA's are the current fastest.
http://www.fujitsu.com/us/services/computing/storage/hdd/enterprise/
whats good engadget. how've you guys been holdin' up? stay clear of that swine flu ok?... dont worry, though. skyblaze cant get it. hes too balls to the wall awesome to catch that shizzle :)
great deal tho. im sooo gettin an SSD for my HP HDX
Just to let you know, the first part of your comment seems to be very random and confusing as well.
sry, man... its what boredom does to me. still cant be as random as the day i saw snuffleupagus n these two columbian tricks on south street doin some crazy mess involving three kilos of coke n a bottle of goo gone... but to each his own i guess :)
Maybe stop doing drugs?
This is good. I want to be able to use one of these to put win 7 on when I build my own computer. Then my boot times would be super fast.
Upping production is a good thing for prices. The price will drop further with more on the market.
Awesome! Fully expect to see that 80 GB drive for under $300 on Newegg then.
chi-ching!
Am I wrong or doesn't, like, EVERY SSD so far get all fucky after a few months of use? These are still unproven territory, are they not? If not, what type of SSD is good, and which is not?
My OCZ Solid drive from 3 months ago is running just as strong as the day it arrived.
And Intel drives, and OCZ Apex and Vortex are some of the good ones besides enterprise-rated drives.
That's good, but your success story alone doesn't signify a positive trend. I remember here on Engadget there have been several stories about performance degredation on these. I'd go find them but... you know. Laziness.
@AVG
The only "good" MLC SSDs are the Intel drives, OCZ's Vertex line, and the Samsung PB22-J (a bit hard to get hold of, though I know in the UK, Scan and Overclockers sell it). Don't even consider anything with a JMicron controller, you'll tear your hair out with frustration. Oh, and there's OCZ's Z-Drive, but most likely you won't have the money for that. Some suggested reading for you: http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3531 and http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3535
I hope the price dropping trend continues, I want to pick up an SSD this Christmas :)
i try to get fucky with some random tail after a night out at the bar and a few drinks. i'm just not sure when SSD's get that way.
Most SSDs, like all the "cheaper" ones, use multi-level cell technology(MLC), which is inefficient for writing(or something like that) and they wear out over time. Every once in a while, when you're shopping for SSDs, you'll find one that's way more expensive than all the other ones, and you'll be like "what the hell," but that one probably uses single-level cell tech(SLC) which is much better and doesn't degrade over time. The Intel 64GB SLC SSD still costs $800 on Newegg, and the 32GB version is somewhere around $400. I dont think the OCZ ones are much cheaper, but there is a 1.8" 64GB Samsung for just under $200, If you dont mind dealing with the smaller size, what with the need to get converters and stuff to make it fit in a normal 2.5" or 3.5" slot.
OCZ Vortex 30gb is $140 at the 'Egg. Yeah it's MLC, jMicron based... but they fair rather well in benchmarks, and reviews. Their specs are pretty close to the Intel ones, too. It's all about the bang for your buck here. And most people cant offord the several hundred dollar 60gb SSD, so they opt for the SLC-based one for cheaper. (120gb OCZ Vortexs are, what, $350 on the 'Egg?)
They are Vertex and they are not jmicron. and even when and ssd drive does slow down after a few months use it is still faster the a regular Harddrive.
Uhhh, you're best advised to ignore the post above by seriousam7. Its mostly uninformed.
Yes, SLC drives are faster. Also probably too small and too expensive for most users.
The faster drives people actually like, like the Intel X25-M's and the OCZ Vertex drives are MLC just like the other crappy drives, they just have better controllers than that POS from jmicron that is giving SSD's a bad name.
If you're going to buy one of these, do yourself a favor and read some of the stuff over on Anandtech. Just click on the "storage" tab and read the last couple of articles. You can even skip over the complicated stuff and get a lot out of it.
Yes SSDs get slower with use. Some of these issues have been addressed with newer firmware, but there is still going to be reduced performance over time. But the drives even after the slow down are still a LOT faster than spinning media.
MLC degrades over time. Just not as quickly as SLC.
Shoot! I mean vice-versa! SLC degrades over time, just not as quickly as MLC.
@Fanfoot
How the hell is my post uninformed? You didn't say anything different than I did.
Outstanding! Now if they could just down to platter-drive prices, we'd be all set. I'm dreaming of a 500GB SSD for $200 by the end of the year. :) Notice I said *dreaming*.
I have that dream as well!
It's a real market now - all the trends are moving in favor of the consumer, prices coming down, capacities up and with the PCIe based cards performance blowing thru the roof. Here's a real-time map of prices over at NewEgg:
http://darrenrush.com/2009/04/solid-state-drive-pricing-getting-competitive/
Well by this time next year lets hope sizes get bigger and prices come down!
what is faster my 3 Raptors in Raid 0 or a SSD ? ... Seriously i am asking .. not trying to say my 3 raptors are awesome in raid 0 .. well they are but is SSD the way to go ..
Jon.. In some cases 1 SSD is faster than 8 Raptors striped. Tried a 30GB OCZ Vertex vs an array today for a read only task. Really low seek times are killer.
Just throwing it out there that ssd is cheaper if you're wanting 3 raptors.
It depends.
Booting from power off, the SSD is almost certainly faster.
Copying really large video files, your RAID 0 is almost certainly faster.
SSDs have actually been around for a good 30 years. The technology is far superior to HDDs in every way, except cost. SSDs have only become mainstream in the past few years with limited success due to usage of poorer quality flash chips (MLC, which is cheaper, less reliable but can hold more than the mission critically reliable SLC flash chips used by the military and government) and poorly designed controllers (ie. Jmicron).
Currently, the best "consumer" (aka MLC) SSDs are: Intel (w/ Intel controller), Samsung/Corsair (w/ Samsung controller), OCZ Vertex/G.Skill Falcon/Super Talent ME (w/ Indilink controller). Any of these are much faster than any RAID0 HDD setup (such as raptors) due to their unmatchable access time (a fraction of a ms vs. 10-20ms for a mechanical drive) and high sustained speeds (ie. Intel has 250MB/s sustained read vs. raptor's
do both!
once i save a little more i'm going to use an X25-M as my boot/apps volume and 3 Velociraptors striped RAID 0 for data and scratch. pricey for sure, but i'm looking forward to the performance!
SSDs have actually been around for a good 30 years. The technology is far superior to HDDs in every way, except cost. SSDs have only become mainstream in the past few years with limited success due to usage of poorer quality flash chips (MLC, which is cheaper, less reliable but can hold more than the mission critically reliable SLC flash chips used by the military and government) and poorly designed controllers (ie. Jmicron).
Currently, the best "consumer" (aka MLC) SSDs are: Intel (w/ Intel controller), Samsung/Corsair (w/ Samsung controller), OCZ Vertex/G.Skill Falcon/Super Talent ME (w/ Indilink controller). Any of these are much faster than any RAID0 HDD setup (such as raptors) due to their unmatchable access time (a fraction of a ms vs. 10-20ms for a mechanical drive) and high sustained speeds (ie. Intel has 250MB/s sustained read vs. raptor's
If it keeps dropping at the same rate, they should be free by October.
No one's mentioned the upcoming SanDisk G3 SSD's with the 240GB version for an MSRP of $499. That seems really reasonably priced to me. They're supposed to be out in mid year 2009.
http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/memory/sandisk-g3-ssd-memory-blows-away-hard-drives-performance.asp
I'll be interested in seeing the reviews. Its major feature that sets it apart from the others is some new file system algorithm created by SanDisk that supposedly greatly increases both the speed and lifespan of the drive.
Going to SanDisk's own website, which is included at the bottom, the information seems to be a bit more reliable. Your tmcnet(?) blogger seems to think that SSDs have RPMs. "40,000 RPM" to be exact. That sort of error not only makes me chuckle, but also makes me die a little inside knowing that people take his information seriously.
Then his nonsense about the drives being PATA. Blah.
Was it really that hard to paraphrase SanDisk's website correctly?