[Waiting for 1gb/1$ SSDs] 25nm NAND flash chips are here

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by gianly1985, Jan 5, 2011.

  1. gianly1985 macrumors 6502a

    gianly1985

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    #1
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4086/microns-realssd-c400-uses-25nm-nand-at-161gb-offers-415mbs-reads

    Bring it on.
     
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    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)
     
  3. Cycom macrumors 6502

    Cycom

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #3
    I'm waiting to see pricing on the new Intel G3 SSDs.
     
  4. mm1250 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    #4
    When one can buy an SSD 128GB for $100 then we will see SSD go mainstream.

    I think 3yrs from now a majority of new PCs sold with SSD based drives.
     
  5. jamesryanbell macrumors 68020

    jamesryanbell

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    #5
    That's about the exact timeframe I had in my head as well. About 3 years or so.
     
  6. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #6
    The current Crucial 120/8 can be found for about $215 :confused:

    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?
     
  7. gianly1985 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    gianly1985

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    #7
  8. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #8
  9. drjaymez macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    #9
    Given our lack of OS based TRIM support on Mac, I'm curious about performance on the Sandforce 2000 vs Intel G3 vs Micron C400. One thing's for sure though, I'm spending the big bucks on one of these drives before spring.
     
  10. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #10
    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.
     
  11. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #11
  12. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #12
    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.
     
  13. adnoh macrumors 6502a

    adnoh

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2010
    #13
    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)
     
  14. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #14
    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.
     
  15. vipergts2207 macrumors 65816

    vipergts2207

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    #15
    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.
     
  16. bossmanjunior macrumors member

    bossmanjunior

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2010
    #16
    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?
     
  17. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #17
    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.
     
  18. OldMacUser macrumors member

    OldMacUser

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #18
    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.
     
  19. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #19
    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)
     
  20. OldMacUser macrumors member

    OldMacUser

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #20
    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.
     
  21. rekhyt macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2008
    Location:
    Part of the old MR guard.
    #21
    Would you do a migration assistant restore afterwards then?
     
  22. vant macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    #22
    The SF-2000 doesn't 'need' SATA3. Just because it maximizes synchronized speeds, doesn't mean it is doing it for every other task.
     
  23. sydenham macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2010
    #23
    6 or 7 people complained on one website and you continue telling everybody that OCZ have a problem with quality control? Unbelievable.
     
  24. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #24
    You are still yet to tell me why they have overall worse reviews than every other SSD maker. I'm still waiting.
     
  25. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #25
    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.

     

Share This Page