Intel X25-M 120GB SSD - Deactivated on Newegg

[Dave76]

A sign of things to come go?

Just saw this on Newegg.



The new Intel G3 SSDs are rumored to be released today.
With the same Intel controller, with only slightly better speed than the G2's.


Source...


Maybe they are planning to compete on price alone.

Meet Intel's SSD 320, The Postville Refresh


A drop from the G2 prices, that's a start.

 

[Maguscreed]

I actually just saw another post detailing the new series here on this website. Apparently they consider the new models superior enough that they are discontinuing their production on the older series. ...so yes, just a sign of things to come.

 

[Wordsworth]

I just bought the Intel Gen 2 120GB from Newegg last week. Oh well, would have liked the $20 price drop though.

Dave, in another thread you spoke of having a 120GB coming. Gen 2 or this new one?

 

[Dave76]

I got the G2, after reading some of the early articles and reviews of the G3 25nm I decided to wait for the dust to settle.

Looks like there is not that much of a performance increase.
The price is a bit better though.

 

[Maguscreed]

That's been the general theme of improvements to devices across the board lately though. Lower power consumption and better price without decreasing performance.
This trend is especially visible in the graphics card market.

 

[richnrockville]

Prices are looking better all the time and this from a guy that paid over $800 for a 30 megabyte hard disk way back when.
rich

 

[TVeblen]

It hurts on the bleeding edge!

 

[Wordsworth]

I got the G2, after reading some of the early articles and reviews of the G3 25nm I decided to wait for the dust to settle.

Looks like there is not that much of a performance increase.
The price is a bit better though.

I knew about the new Intel SATA III drives but had not seen any news of these new SATA II. Like you say though, not much difference and I'll go to SATA III or better down the road with a new mobo as this one is SATA II. I'm real happy with what I've got now though.

It hurts on the bleeding edge!

And a Band-Aid won't do, gonna need a tourniquet.

 

[pparks1]

Actually, Intel is releasing new versions of the X25-M's which are still based on SATA 3.0Gbps. These are better priced, and have higher IOPS than the previous generation drives. While write speeds have increased about 3x, read speeds are mostly the same as previous gen drives.

Then there are the Intel 510 series SSD's which are based on SATA 6.0Gbps and these offer far higher read/write throughputs, but far lower IOPS across the board than the previous generation drives.

Here is a story with some more detailed information for you;
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/28/intel_320_ssd/

 

[Dave76]

Here some info posted yesterday:

Intel Announces Third-Generation SSD: Intel® Solid-State Drive 320 Ser

There is a link to a review.
Many more popping up since yesterday morning.

Intel 320 Series 300GB SSD Review w/ 25nm Flash!​

Intel SSD 320 Review (300GB)​

Crucial m4 And Intel SSD 320: The Other SSD Competitors​

 

[Wordsworth]

I notice rather than SATA II, etc. the common terms used are SATA 3.0Gbps, etc. Makes sense as it's more specific.

With this mobo, the SATA 3.0Gbps 300GB catches my eye as a possible upgrade when the next gen comes out and the price gets cut in half.

 

[essenbe]

I'll throw my two cents in. I don't believe you will notice much difference between the G2 and G3. Even the rated speeds are quite similar. My G2 80GB Intel is rated 250/70 the G3 is rated 270/90. That really is not noticible in real world OS operation. I also own the G2 Vertex2 90GB which is rated faster than the G3 Intel. The G2 OCZ is rated 285/275. I have twice set up identical tests after secure erase, alignment and formatting with identical software and hardware. If you look at the numbers of the benchmarks, you would think there is a big difference. In my useage there really is no difference. Personally, I prefer the Intel, but only because of subtile differences. I use both and in actual useage there is no difference. Here are the results of my latest test, but that is why I think benchmarks are only for bragging rites or to keep some people employed. Real world they are the same.

 

[Wordsworth]

If I do upgrade to a Gen 3 it'd be for a larger capacity, as I wouldn't disagree with the real world argument. On my system real world performance differences between even the WD Black Caviar (BC) and the Intel SSD are both great and small. The BC booted in 65 seconds, the SSD does it in 41, no tweaks for either time. The SSD also goes to sleep or shutdown right now, where the BC took, depending upon how long the uptime, 10-15 seconds to do either, again no tweaks. Installing Windows and applications was fast, and I notice a speed difference when installing large updates. These differences I think are great.

The small differences would be with Office apps for example. The BC opened Word, Excel, or Powerpoint almost instantaneously, the SSD instantaneously. A difference yes, but this small difference was to be expected as I'd have to go back to my Pentium III for any real wait time opening MS Office apps. So I won't upgrade to another generation of SSD except for a larger capacity; that I could see paying out some money for, but not any speed difference claimed in benchmarks which I may not notice in real world use.

 

[essenbe]

Wordsworth, I don't disagree with you on buying a G3 for better performance. I don't think you will see much. However, I do think you should see better performance from your SSD than you are seeing. I have a WD Cavier 1002FAEX drive also. That is where my OS was installed before I got my SSD. There was a great difference in performance. I can show you benchmarks if you like, but the only benchmark that makes a real world difference is access time IMO. My WD access time was 13.19ms My intel access time was 0.108ms. That is a significant difference. My reboot time (shut down and start up) is 29sec. My only point here is I think you should be seeing better performance.

 

[Dave76]

Agree with both of you, the differences in SSDs are generally just what you can see in benchmarks.

If you have a 'fast' SSD next to a computer with a 'slow' SSD, I don't think you would see much difference.
It's all down to benchmarks and something for people to argue about.

I do notice the difference between my systems with HDDs and the one with the SSD. They are generally faster, guess it all depends on how impatient you are.

Everyone is waiting for the prices to drop some more, then they can get one or a bigger one.

 

[essenbe]

Agree with both of you, the differences in SSDs are generally just what you can see in benchmarks.

If you have a 'fast' SSD next to a computer with a 'slow' SSD, I don't think you would see much difference.
It's all down to benchmarks and something for people to argue about.

I do notice the difference between my systems with HDDs and the one with the SSD. They are generally faster, guess it all depends on how impatient you are.

Everyone is waiting for the prices to drop some more, then they can get one or a bigger one.

Dave, patience is not one of my virtues.

 

[Dave76]

We have that in common

 

[Wordsworth]

Wordsworth, I don't disagree with you on buying a G3 for better performance. I don't think you will see much. However, I do think you should see better performance from your SSD than you are seeing. I have a WD Cavier 1002FAEX drive also. That is where my OS was installed before I got my SSD. There was a great difference in performance. I can show you benchmarks if you like, but the only benchmark that makes a real world difference is access time IMO. My WD access time was 13.19ms My intel access time was 0.108ms. That is a significant difference. My reboot time (shut down and start up) is 29sec. My only point here is I think you should be seeing better performance.

The access time you give on the SSD, is that read or write? AS SSD reports 0.086ms read, and 0.116ms for write on my Intel. On the WD Black Caviar HDTune reports 13.0ms for access time. I have then the great access time difference you speak of where the benchmarks are concerned. The boot time difference we have will differ of course with hardware/software but I do see a significant difference there on my box.

I'm not complaining about the performance, but as both you and Dave have said, patience is not my greatest virtue. I recall Bill Gates speaking in the mid 90s of instant on computers, well I want one NOW! THIS INSTANT!

 

[essenbe]

As far as access times.


As far as the instant on computers. When you find them, get 2 I'll buy one from you!

BTW, you have a 120GB I believe. I think you'll find they have better specs than the 80GB I have. You should get better results than me.

 

[Wordsworth]

I should have seen your earlier post before with the test results. Anyway, I posted in the SSD speed thread but I'll post here also; my results are nearly the same as Dave's so I don't think I'm missing anything in performance unless we both are.