Intel 20gb Larson Creek SSD

[AkumaX]

A small SSD HDD with a specific use: paired with your Z68 motherboard - 20gb cache in front of your 1-2TB HDD!

http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/27/intels-larsen-creek-ssds-leak-out-courtesy-of-asrocks-z68-mot/

 

[postmortemIA]

if it is smart enough to put Windows OS files there, then great...

 

[fire400]

if it comes free with the mobo...

 

[Tsavo]

Stupid that they require this with Z68.

They should sell a 20 GB drive with the software for any AHCI compliant system.

Intel's back to being run by muppets, it seems.

 

[Bryf50]

Stupid that they require this with Z68.

They should sell a 20 GB drive with the software for any AHCI compliant system.

Intel's back to being run by muppets, it seems.

I don't see where it says anything about anything being required.

 

[ksec]

So far the Rumors are it will cost only $49 - 59 for 20GB. It will be based on the same Intel Controller as G2 and 320, using 34nm SLC.

So far sounds great, 20GB, with decent software optimization ( Not caching ANY media files such as mp3, video... etc ) It should provide very good speed at reasonable price.

It would be even better if they make an 6Gbps Solution.....

 

[Emulex]

meh i'd rather go pci-express 😉 oh i get it that is an SLC cache for that new feature the Z68 anand talked about.

 

[ksec]

meh i'd rather go pci-express 😉 oh i get it that is an SLC cache for that new feature the Z68 anand talked about.

Talked about where?

Anyway i was thinking, Windows 7 takes 15GB, I wonder how many of those are unused drivers, backup DLL files, help files etc that you generally dont open them once a year.

 

[Voo]

The question is: Why would this only work with one specific SSD? Depending on the implementation (ie who's responsible for managing the cache) that could work with all SSDs - although we're talking about Intel here so even if it was technically possible doesn't mean much..

 

[AkumaX]

The question is: Why would this only work with one specific SSD? Depending on the implementation (ie who's responsible for managing the cache) that could work with all SSDs - although we're talking about Intel here so even if it was technically possible doesn't mean much..

It's not - it'll work with any SSD! They're just advertising a cost-effective solution (20gb). But you can take any SSD you have and partition it off as cache*

*pending any changes Intel feels like making

 

[dorion]

It's not - it'll work with any SSD! They're just advertising a cost-effective solution (20gb). But you can take any SSD you have and partition it off as cache*

*pending any changes Intel feels like making

Anandtech reported there is a limit to how big a SSD can be used, I think it was 80GB. Don't know the specifics but there is a limit to the amount of caching Z68 allows.

 

[Zargon]

shit maybe Ill ditch p67 for z68 then, I have a few 30gb vertexs laying around.

 

[AkumaX]

shit maybe Ill ditch p67 for z68 then, I have a few 30gb vertexs laying around.

I got a 40gb X25-V, I think that should suffice?

 

[Zargon]

yeah


rethinking, I hve a 96gb sd, I have no use for this

this feature belongs on mid to low end.....high end stuff, ssd boot drive shld be pushed as the norm

 

[aigomorla]

It will be based on the same Intel Controller as G2 and 320, using 34nm SLC.

Ummm you sure the 20gigers is SLC? and not MLC?

:O

its near the extreme series SSD drive isnt it?

 

[Zap]

Ummm you sure the 20gigers is SLC? and not MLC?

Fudzilla quoted a leaked Intel roadmap which supposedly states so.

The Q3 also brings update to value part of the Intel's SSD lineup via 3xx Larsen Creek drives that will have 20GB of capacity, have 34nm SLC chips, and will be available with either SATA or mSATA 3Gbps interface.

Kind of makes sense. Seagate's hybrid Momentus XT uses SLC. It probably is to retain high throughput without having to use more NAND chips, plus more write cycles.

Intel's SSD 310: G2 Performance in an mSATA Form Factor

The mSATA interface is physically a mini PCIe connector (similar to what you’d see with a WiFi card in a notebook) but electrically SATA.

This makes total sense for a notebook. Wouldn't it be nice to have a small notebook (not one of those 17" monsters that can take multiple 2.5" drives) that feels snappy like it has an SSD, but has tons of storage without being too expensive and without being limited to the Seagate Momentus XT (or the slower Seagate/Samsung 5400RPM hybrid HDDs).

 

[Voo]

@AkumaX: Thanks for the information - now that's starting to sound promising (especially if you can partition a part of a larger SSD for it!)

@Zap: But then if ksecs rumours hold true too that'd mean a 20gb SLC drive for 49-59$ which is way too cheap imo. Assuming that Intel would want as many people as possible to use that cache and MLC should be fine for most scenarios I think it'd make more sense to use cheaper SLC flash.

But we'll know soon enough.

 

[ksec]

Which is interesting is the new Article on Anandtech about Windows Thin PC, which actually shows a Windows 7 stripped down to less then 3GB of space! In real life, it is VERY likely that 99% of you most accessed Windows System File can be fitted in 5GB, with 15GB to spare for Applications files!

And slightly off topic, Windows Thin PC actually had Pagefile disabled. Talk about Microsoft not recommending disabling page file? As we posted in a earlier thread.

 

[thescreensavers]

Is this the same crap intel Robinson was trying to do with laptops but it failed?

 

[drizek]

Which is interesting is the new Article on Anandtech about Windows Thin PC, which actually shows a Windows 7 stripped down to less then 3GB of space! In real life, it is VERY likely that 99% of you most accessed Windows System File can be fitted in 5GB, with 15GB to spare for Applications files!

And slightly off topic, Windows Thin PC actually had Pagefile disabled. Talk about Microsoft not recommending disabling page file? As we posted in a earlier thread.

I installed windows 7 on a 4gb SSD. I also had it dual booting with Leopard on a 16GB SSD.

 

[Zap]

@Zap: But then if ksecs rumours hold true too that'd mean a 20gb SLC drive for 49-59$ which is way too cheap imo. Assuming that Intel would want as many people as possible to use that cache and MLC should be fine for most scenarios I think it'd make more sense to use cheaper SLC flash.

Well, it is supposedly 34nm SLC, not the 50nm SLC in drives like the X25-E, so there is a cost savings. Also, they recycled an existing controller. With SLC they might be able to get away with fewer NAND chips too (not positive on this) while retaining high performance.

Is this the same crap intel Robinson was trying to do with laptops but it failed?

It sure sounds like Intel Robson, on a grander scale and with much improved SSDs.

 

[ksec]

Is this the same crap intel Robinson was trying to do with laptops but it failed?

Well, Intel Robinson only supported up to 4GB at its initial implementation. And its software is properly not as mature since Intel hasn't had time to play with SSD yet.

This Caching Thing should be a different beast........ ( I hope )

 

[beginner99]

This caching thing makes about 0% sense to me. I mean I know a lot better than any algorithm what I want to have loaded fast and what not and can install/put it on the ssd myself.

59$ for 20 GB SLC in year 2011? Dream on.

 

[nanaki333]

I installed windows 7 on a 4gb SSD. I also had it dual booting with Leopard on a 16GB SSD.

what version of windows 7 were you using that was able to install with only 4GB?

 

[Voo]

This caching thing makes about 0% sense to me. I mean I know a lot better than any algorithm what I want to have loaded fast and what not and can install/put it on the ssd myself.

Ok, then please start by telling us which files of the ~15gb of your Win7 install are accessed often enough that it makes sense to put them on a SSD - that is apart from the obvious problem that you can't differentiate on a fine enough basis for that anyhow.

A cache makes quite a lot of sense for that - it's basically the same as a l3 cache for memory and hdd.