Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
[Waiting for 1gb/1$ SSDs] 25nm NAND flash chips are here
- Thread starter gianly1985
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Crucial drives have always been quite expensive, C400 isn't an exception. 120/128GB drives can already be bought for less than 200$ and even 240/256GB drives go for as low as ~420$. 512GB is significantly cheaper though, haven't seen any drives for less than 1000$. When looking at Crucial's current pricing, I expect other OEMs to bring the price very close to 1$/1GB (C300 costs ~20-25% more than the cheapest, yet good drives)
The current Crucial 120/8 can be found for about $215 
And 3 years for SSDs to go mainstream sounds pretty good. Despite some people saying it won't happen, I think Intel will be able to continually drive the cost down, reliability and size up to the point in which many manufacturers adopt it. Also, given that nearly every company uses Intel, there is also the ability for Intel to sell processor/GPU/SSD as a package deal to save makers money and deliver a better product for less. What is the next theoretical flash chip size? 17nm?
And 3 years for SSDs to go mainstream sounds pretty good. Despite some people saying it won't happen, I think Intel will be able to continually drive the cost down, reliability and size up to the point in which many manufacturers adopt it. Also, given that nearly every company uses Intel, there is also the ability for Intel to sell processor/GPU/SSD as a package deal to save makers money and deliver a better product for less. What is the next theoretical flash chip size? 17nm?
Another one:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4100/ocz-vertex-pro-3-demo-worlds-first-sandforce-sf2000
Waiting for Intel's move.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4100/ocz-vertex-pro-3-demo-worlds-first-sandforce-sf2000
Waiting for Intel's move.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/05/intels-25nm-solid-state-drives-boast-huge-capacity-improved-re/
Some speculations or 'leaks' (supposedly) on Intel's updates. I am really excited to see 'enterprise grade' on the E as it seems to imply an even greater level of durability.
Some speculations or 'leaks' (supposedly) on Intel's updates. I am really excited to see 'enterprise grade' on the E as it seems to imply an even greater level of durability.
The SandForce 1200 has its own wear leveling software and puts incredible speeds on Macs, many which have maxed out the capacity of SATA2. As of now, the SandForce 1200 is about as fast as you can go. SandForce 2000 is going to be worth it only if it will see SATA3 (as its theorized specs are twice the max of SATA2) and Intel's upcoming SSD (which IIRC will be w/ a Micron/Intel joint controller) will almost surely have a revised platform also geared for SATA3.
I think we will see SATA3 sooner than we think as there are a few driving forces which will change.
1) USB 3-incredible speed
2) SATA3-incredible speed
3) SSD-incredible speed and declining costs
4) Quad Core Processors being standardized-declining costs
If you have all of these in one package, you are going to get far more benefit than one alone, and so it isn't unreasonable to look for and buy a SSD which is SATA3 ready, as I really think we will see it come sooner than we think.
I think we will see SATA3 sooner than we think as there are a few driving forces which will change.
1) USB 3-incredible speed
2) SATA3-incredible speed
3) SSD-incredible speed and declining costs
4) Quad Core Processors being standardized-declining costs
If you have all of these in one package, you are going to get far more benefit than one alone, and so it isn't unreasonable to look for and buy a SSD which is SATA3 ready, as I really think we will see it come sooner than we think.
SF-2000 will support SATA 6Gb/s but Intel G3 will at least in the beginning use SATA 3Gb/s though it's possible that we will see a version with SATA 6Gb/s support. However, Intel G3 will go only up to 250MB/s so not much point in using SATA 6Gb/s while SF-2000 drives have already broke the 500MB/s barrier
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3965/intels-3rd-generation-x25m-ssd-specs-revealed
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3971/...troller-sf2000-capable-of-500mbs-and-60k-iops
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3965/intels-3rd-generation-x25m-ssd-specs-revealed
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3971/...troller-sf2000-capable-of-500mbs-and-60k-iops
Nvm what I said about Intel; I for some reason thought that Intel G3 was the older base; that seems silly that their updated SSD would not even max out SATA2? I guess they are more interested in cost reduction and standardization that cutting edge speed. If that is the case, stick with SandForce 2000 if you want something for SATA3 because as said, it has already ran faster than 500MB/s and is expected to be finalized with even higher speeds. As of right now, you may not use use that speed, but if you are going from one SSD to another external SSD using USB3, I can only imagine how fast that would be.
As a very knowledgeable man when it comes to ssds, are you more excited about intel g3 or sf2000 and why?
Also since my mb is sata 2 is the best time to buy now? (I'm going for vertex 2)
Performance wise SF-2000 sounds a lot more interesting but you definitely need SATA 6Gb/s. I can't really say much without knowing the prices though. If Intel is noticeably cheaper per GB, then it would be more attractive to me at least (fast enough for SATA 3Gb/s, no firmware issues).
If you don't need it right now, wait. Mainly because you will get bigger capacities for less $ and current SandForce based drives are experiencing some unpleasant issues with Macs and OS X (e.g. the hibernation issue). When new ones come, you may be able to grab an old one with a decent discount too.
I'm waiting for Lion to come out first. Then I can do a fresh install onto the SSD and the prices on these drives should be even cheaper by then as well.
does anyone know if the new huron river chipsets will support sata III?
Edit: scratch that, i believe it does. now will apple utilize it?
Edit: scratch that, i believe it does. now will apple utilize it?
I have to question if Intel will use the same controller on their high-performance line. I would be willing to bet they will use something faster than the standard. They say they will be 'enterprise' grade too, so we'll see.
I would consider the Vertex 2 very carefully as they seem to have frequent issues with quality control that can be seen by reading online reviews.
Hi Nickzac,
Can you give more details on these "frequent issues with quality control" referencing the OCZ drives that you have quoted here and in other threads in this forum?
I just purchased and installed an OCZ 120GB Vertex 2 two weeks ago, and while it's working fine right now, your posts have gotten me concerned. I am doing weekly backups of my data right now and want to be prepared if there are indeed big issues with the drive.
OldMacUser,
If you are currently using one and it is working well, you should be okay as far as faulty quality control. Some people are claiming they are having wear leveling problems with the Vertex 2 and while its controller should theoretically address the issue, the lack of OCZ quality control raises concern about every aspect of the SSD, including inferior wear leveling. It even raises the question do they have their level of quality control on all of their products? Speed wise however, the Vertex 2 is probably the fastest SSD when looking at both sequential read and write tests.
Here are a few of numerous reviews which put the average customer satisfaction far below other SSD brands with similar pricing and many of the faulty Vertex 2's fail almost immediately
Now, take these reviews with a little caution, as I am sure some of the reviews of the problems were induced by the user or what caused it to fail occurred outside of OCZ's control. Obviously though, there is a substantial issue with quality control with OCZ and the reviews are less than flattering. For the high price you pay for a SSD, you should get the best, which OCZ SSDs fall short of. To me, the the level of quality control (or lack of it) is not acceptable and so I feel that there are better SSDs on the market.
The reviews for the Intel X-25 are impressive
The OWC Mercury Pro Extreme may be the most favored here as it has impressive speed and thus far great reliability. Also, check out all the awards it has gotten at the bottom of this link
(Note: many Sandforce 1200 controlled SSDs, including the OWC, have a sleep issue which is yet to be worked out with a firmware fix)
If you are currently using one and it is working well, you should be okay as far as faulty quality control. Some people are claiming they are having wear leveling problems with the Vertex 2 and while its controller should theoretically address the issue, the lack of OCZ quality control raises concern about every aspect of the SSD, including inferior wear leveling. It even raises the question do they have their level of quality control on all of their products? Speed wise however, the Vertex 2 is probably the fastest SSD when looking at both sequential read and write tests.
Here are a few of numerous reviews which put the average customer satisfaction far below other SSD brands with similar pricing and many of the faulty Vertex 2's fail almost immediately
Now, take these reviews with a little caution, as I am sure some of the reviews of the problems were induced by the user or what caused it to fail occurred outside of OCZ's control. Obviously though, there is a substantial issue with quality control with OCZ and the reviews are less than flattering. For the high price you pay for a SSD, you should get the best, which OCZ SSDs fall short of. To me, the the level of quality control (or lack of it) is not acceptable and so I feel that there are better SSDs on the market.
The reviews for the Intel X-25 are impressive
The OWC Mercury Pro Extreme may be the most favored here as it has impressive speed and thus far great reliability. Also, check out all the awards it has gotten at the bottom of this link
(Note: many Sandforce 1200 controlled SSDs, including the OWC, have a sleep issue which is yet to be worked out with a firmware fix)
Thanks for the link to the Google reviews, I would definitely take them with a large pinch of salt (2 of the reviews are posted anonymously and the other two are from the same person) and hope (trust?) that the recent batches of SSD from OCZ are of better quality.
Also, the bad reviews are clustered around September 2010 potentially indicating a bad batch, and during the course of my research before purchasing, I did not come across any other show-stopping issues.
In any case, I have not experienced any problems (*touch wood*) with my Vertex 2 as the MBP has been left on for the last 5 days with multiple sleep/wake occurrences (sometimes sleep initiated by me, mostly by the system timer).
Still, always prudent to keep to a regular backup schedule
.Thanks again for your info.
6 or 7 people complained on one website and you continue telling everybody that OCZ have a problem with quality control? Unbelievable.
You are still yet to tell me why they have overall worse reviews than every other SSD maker. I'm still waiting.
Sure it works with SATA 3Gb/s but if you really want to take the full advantage of it, you must have SATA 6Gb/s. No use to pay much more for the SF-2000 if you have SATA 3Gb/s IMO.