Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Write speed are still slow compared to other SSD's.

sandforce gets that massive write speed by proprietary data compression, so you actually write much less than you think you write. well, except for already heavily compressed media, such as mp3, jpg, zips, etc.

im just not sure i trust their data compression, at least, not yet. i want to know what happens when those drives start to fail - and how it impacts those compression/decompression algorithms.

till then i think im going to stick with the intels.
 
that 600gb looks pretty good to me. a pair in raid0 would be nice.
500mb/s read and 340mb/s write. in my use of ssd's intels have worked better then any other. 0 bricks out of 20 ssd's

yeah that seems to be the consensus - the quality of the chips intel uses is top notch. other manufacturers can use lower quality (cheaper) chips because the sandforce controller does a lot less physical writing.

also in the reliability bucket is that firmware update fiasco ... firmware updates should not be bricking drives! give sandforce a generation or 2 more, maybe a vertex 3 before i switch from intel, which isnt due for quite a while i think.
 
The price is what matters as well. IF 160GB is around 200 bucks, that will be hard to beat, but we will see. It's nice to see some real competition

totally agree. however the compression used by sandforce means you can write less, which means you can use cheaper flash modules, so actually the sandforce drives should be cheaper per GB. technically that is. intel might subsidize heavily until they can compete, god knows they've got the cash to do it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.