Intel 34nm SSDs out in 2 weeks!

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by winterspan, Jun 28, 2009.

  1. winterspan macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    #1
    The inquirer UK tech website reports that Intels next generation SSDs made with 34nm NAND flash will be out in two weeks. The smaller process size should double capacity of their existing drives, leading to a 320GB X25m. But regardless of what SSD or size you are interested in, prices should be lowered dramatically across the board.and that should also cause competitors like OCZ, Patriot, Corsair, etc to lower their prices as well.
    www.theinquirer.net

    Similarly, later this year Jmicron, the infamous SSD controller maker will have a new lowcost controller out that fixes the problems of the past. This along with 34nm flash from other foundries besides intel should lead to another major price per GB drop.


    This is posted from my cellphone, so please excuse the lack of more detailed information.. I will try to add more links and details later today
     
  2. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #2
    Indeed, I just hope the new Intel Solid State Drives support faster than the hardlocked 70MB/s write speed of the current X25-M series.
     
  3. Some Guy 555 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    #3
    Would be awesome if they lower the X25-E Extreme drives... and make a 128GB version of it for the same as the 64gb version now.

    If so, I will buy 4 of them when they come out and put em in RAID0 :)
     
  4. freediro macrumors member

    freediro

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Location:
    Long Beach but come from the BEANTOWN!
    #4
    Yes!

    that is what i wanted to hear

    larger capacity, fixing control problems, and price drops!

    I really hope to see a 100-120GB around 200 dollars. . . . i can wish cant't I?;)
     
  5. MikhailT macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    #5
    I rather have 70MBps random speed than 500MBps seq speed.

    It should be interesting to see how much of an improvement in random IOPS in those next generation SSDs.
     
  6. friareunuch macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2009
    #7
    whoa. cool if true.

    how dependable is that site though?
     
  7. Hal1980 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    #8
    The marketing departments have done a great job pushing max speed when random is what really matters. I agree with you. It's all about random speed.
     
  8. Canuckistan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Guelph, nr Toronto, Canada
    #9
    Random speed ... What is it?

    Sub-title says it all.
     
  9. Belm macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    #10
    I'm with you. I guess we'll be waiting until next Christmas.
     
  10. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #11
    Random speed is the speed at which it can access/write to random blocks of memory, as opposed to sequential blocks. Most large files are scattered, which relies on the random speed.
     
  11. ChrisN macrumors 65816

    ChrisN

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Location:
    Demarest, NJ
    #12
    Man I can't wait to get one of these and put them in a 15" uMBP it is gonna be awesome.

    ChrisN
     
  12. MikhailT macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    #13
    In other words, imagine the data is stored in a container and now imagine the railway trains as the sequential information transfer. It is all on the same train and the containers are stored sequentially and the train goes on a single track all the way from and to the SSD. You can imagine this is the fastest method to delivery. Trains can go 200-300MPH (200-250MBps)

    Now a lot of programs or typical OS workload which have data containers scattered all over the place in random locations. The only method to get all of those information is to send out multiple delivery trucks on different routes to pick all of them up and the transfer of the information is measured by the time all the delivery trucks delivered up all the containers. Trucks usually goes anywhere from 10-60Mph (10-60MBps).

    This is why manufacturers don't advertise the random speed, a decent SSD like the Vertex can do 10-20MBps in both read and write only whereas Intel does 40-50MB in read and 20-30 in write. Typical HD can barely do 1MBps.

    So you can understand why manufacturers rather show the seq speed which nowadays is 250/200MBps for both read and write seq speed.

    So the most important speed when it comes to SSD is the random speed performance. Suppose the next couple of years, the SSD will use sports cars to pick up data or even helicopters. :p
     
  13. zw-gator macrumors 6502a

    zw-gator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Location:
    Canada
    #14
    I can't wait for these things to hit ~$200 for 500GB's
     
  14. dlhuss macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    #15
    They're the ones that told us that our nVidia 8600GTs were defective about, oh, a freakin' YEAR* before Apple admitted it.

    (not really sure how much time in advance, but it seemed like forever.)
     
  15. mac jones macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    #16
    love to hear things like this.

    Let's hope this translates into more a nice little price war.
    :)
     
  16. Chupa Chupa macrumors G5

    Chupa Chupa

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    #17
    Yeah, I just read that on some other site. Engadget maybe. I'm kinda sick about it. I just bought a Corsair P128, and just weeks later a faster, bigger, cheaper SSD will arrive. Ah, the pleasures of early adopting. No bother. I'll probably buy one of the new Intels too.
     
  17. NovemberWhiskey macrumors 68030

    NovemberWhiskey

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    #18
  18. MikhailT macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    #19

    It's not a definite but it won't be twice the current 160GB price for sure neither will it be cheaper than the current 160GB, maybe around 800$ for 320GB instead of 1200$. Smaller process means they can produce more for cheaper prices.

    Remember back when they first launched X25-M 80GB, it was selling for around 700$. Now less than a year later, they would be selling 160GB for 400$ while 320GB around 800$.
     
  19. BaronvdB macrumors 6502

    BaronvdB

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    #20
    awesome...i'll probably drop one of these in my 13" mbp
     
  20. Ruahrc macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #21
    Yet everybody was conveniently forgetting all of this in the 70-page 1.5Gbps SATA thread and complaining that their sequential read/write speeds were being throttled when their random reads/writes were hardly affected at all.

    Ruahrc
     
  21. winterspan thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    #22
    I'll have to disagree. You guys are mistaken in believing that random read and write are the *only* factors that matter. Granted, I'll agree that random READ speed is easily the most significant benefit SSDs have over traditional harddrives, but like most things, it is about achieving balance.

    The random write 'issue' started because older and budget SSDs based on the JMicron controllers without RAM cache had such poor random write performance that they could actually make your system stutter and lag during heavy multi-tasking. Current-generation SSDs that use controllers from Samsung, Indilinx, and Intel don't have this problem.

    Intel's X25M SSDs took random write performance to an extreme, offering 3-4X faster performance than the closest competition using Indilinx's SSD controllers (like the OCZ Vertex, G.Skill Falcon, Patriot Torqx). However, based on real-world benchmarks and testing from the likes of Anandtech, PCperspective, benchmarkreviews.com, etc, the extreme random write performance offers no tangible benefits to non-server (e.g. consumer/workstation) workloads. The Intel X25 level of random write performance is really only useful for server applications like databases and transaction processing where you have thousands of database entries or log file entries being written to disk every second. It seems that once you get past a certain threshold, around the performance of fast 10K RPM HD (1-2MB/sec -- yes MB/sec), more random write performance doesn't provide much in the way of advantages for laptop/desktop situations.

    And Intel's SSD architecture that creates this high random write performance directly limits their sequential write performance, which can be vital in certain applications, like video/multimedia editing, file transfer, file copy, transferring from fast external drives/RAID, writing large amounts of data to disk from RAM, etc.

    Similarly, while random read performance speeds up OS startup, application launching, etc, sequential read performance is CRITICAL for high-bandwidth applications like multimedia work, or other situations where you have large volumes of data moving in and out of storage.


    You can pick up a 120GB G.Skill Falcon SSD (identical to OCZ Vertex) for $299 with $40 rebate at newegg.com. Not quite $200, but this is an excellent drive. Do NOT skimp with a cheap SSD.. you'll end up with a JMicron controller based POS that you'll be very unhappy with.


    Not only were sequential transfers throttled, but data moving in and out of cache. There are plenty of benchmarks out there now that show that despite not impacting random read and write speed, the SATA/1.5 was having real-world impacts on OS boot, application startup, etc.

    As much as the Apple zealots on here want to defend Apple for whatever reason, the SATA/1.5 situation was a legitimate issue that could have greatly impacted performance in many situations, and hence was quickly taken care of.
     

Share This Page