intel 320 priced out on the egg

[nanaki333]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820167050

at $229 for 120GB.... i think my decision has been made to get a non-OCZ SF based drive. right now the 320 is priced the exact same as the G2 120GB. i was hoping for low 200s, possibly even high 100s ($189 maybe?). at this price, it's just not going to be competitive. unless this is just newegg's early adoption tax.

 

[Zargon]

yeah the 510(Elm Crest)the really good one) is $314 @ 120gb

the 250gbis the fastest, but @ 620 for 250gb

 

[finbarqs]

but it's still slower than the 320 on random read, meaning that general usage, 320 > 510. only data xfer 510 > 320

 

[Reckoner]

Hmm should I grab this or the vertex 3..... Choices, choices

 

[aceO07]

I'm waiting for the 300GB to show up somewhere at a not inflated price.

 

[zod96]

Why would someone buy a SATA II drive when OCZ and Crucial have the SATA III drives out that smoke these SATA II drives for the same price?

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Why would someone buy a SATA II drive when OCZ and Crucial have the SATA III drives out that smoke these SATA II drives for the same price?

this

 

[tey112]

Compatibility for those of us (too scared) to try a SATA III in a macbook 2011. Of course, these haven't even been tried in a mbp, so it's still a gamble.

 

[Edrick]

So if the G2 120GB and the G3 120GB drives are the same price, and offer the same performance, and have the same controller, why would anyone buy the G3 with its 25nm NAND over a G2 with 34nm NAND which has a longer lifespan?

 

[a123456]

It's not a great deal at the current price, but you saw the G2 go down to ~170 or so with MIR, etc. So if this G3 can hit that price of around 1.4$/GB, that would be a decent buy and cheaper than the average C300s.

The other problem is that right now we don't know the performance of the smaller G3s, just the 300GB that's been out all over the place.

So if the G2 120GB and the G3 120GB drives are the same price, and offer the same performance, and have the same controller, why would anyone buy the G3 with its 25nm NAND over a G2 with 34nm NAND which has a longer lifespan?

The only thing I saw with the G3 over the G2 is the built-in RAID4, the AES, and better writes. If you don't care about any of those, then the G2 is probably better.

 

[Edrick]

The only thing I saw with the G3 over the G2 is the built-in RAID4, the AES, and better writes. If you don't care about any of those, then the G2 is probably better.

It is myunderstanding the RAID4 is only there to help prevent 25nm NAND failure.

So AES and slightly better writes is what you gain from the G3, at the expense of lower write cycle lifespan.

 

[a123456]

It is myunderstanding the RAID4 is only there to help prevent 25nm NAND failure.

So AES and slightly better writes is what you gain from the G3, at the expense of lower write cycle lifespan.

I know everyone hates 25nm, but are there actual hard numbers on write cycles on 25nm and 34nm? Is the difference 10%, 50%, 100%?

 

[Edrick]

I know everyone hates 25nm, but are there actual hard numbers on write cycles on 25nm and 34nm? Is the difference 10%, 50%, 100%?

I keep seeing these numbers:

5000 writes per bit for 34nm
3000 writes per bit for 25nm

Granted most people will not even come close to the 3000 number over the course of their drive ownership. But that is still a 40% reduction.

 

[Broheim]

Why would someone buy a SATA II drive when OCZ and Crucial have the SATA III drives out that smoke these SATA II drives for the same price?

because OCZ are douchebags

imo the reason why the 320 isn't cheaper than the G2 is because the G2 is still in stock and 25nm NAND isn't much cheaper than 34nm right now (but it'll get cheaper as production ramps up).

if the prices drop to a reasonable level I'd much rather pick up one of these instead of a SF-2000 drive, you can't really tell much of a difference in real world use.

 

[a123456]

I keep seeing these numbers:

5000 writes per bit for 34nm
3000 writes per bit for 25nm

Granted most people will not even come close to the 3000 number over the course of their drive ownership. But that is still a 40% reduction.

I guess it's understandable to be annoyed at that kind of reduction if you write to the drive a lot. For me, it probably wouldn't make any difference since apparently I average about 5GB/day over the last year, which works out to eons of years before wearing out no matter what kind of drive.

Wearout indicator at 97.

because OCZ are douchebags

imo the reason why the 320 isn't cheaper than the G2 is because the G2 is still in stock and 25nm NAND isn't much cheaper than 34nm right now (but it'll get cheaper as production ramps up).

if the prices drop to a reasonable level I'd much rather pick up one of these instead of a SF-2000 drive, you can't really tell much of a difference in real world use.

Even if you hate OCZ, the Crucial C400 is a solid drive if a bit more expensive than the G3. They were selling 455 for the 256GB.

 

[Broheim]

Even if you hate OCZ, the Crucial C400 is a solid drive if a bit more expensive than the G3. They were selling 455 for the 256GB.

I haven't seen the danish price for a C400 yet, but if it's more than just slightly pricier than the C300 then I'd rather have a C300...

what I meant by my post was, that yes the 320 is not worth it atm, but if they do go down in price then they're good value for money.

 

[IntelUser2000]

I keep seeing these numbers:

5000 writes per bit for 34nm
3000 writes per bit for 25nm

Granted most people will not even come close to the 3000 number over the course of their drive ownership. But that is still a 40% reduction.

That's not always true, but you keep insisting on it. Write lifespan varies wildly depending on the manufacturer. Intel is using the same 5k life span chips(though at 25nm) as the 34nm ones. Some 34nm chips for example, are already at 3k, like Hynix's.

That's same lifespan is reflected in worst-case lifespan being same as previous drives per GB, and 2x and 4x for the 300GB and 600GB versions.

X25-M G2
80GB: 7.5TB
160GB: 15TB

Intel 320
40GB: 5
80GB: 10
120GB: 15
160GB: 15
300GB: 30
600GB: 60

 

[THizzle7XU]

The 300GB was priced at $565 on SuperBiiz.com, but it was pulled down. Still comes up in the Google shopping results though.

 

[a123456]

That's not always true, but you keep insisting on it. Write lifespan varies wildly depending on the manufacturer. Intel is using the same 5k life span chips(though at 25nm) as the 34nm ones. Some 34nm chips for example, are already at 3k, like Hynix's.

That's same lifespan is reflected in worst-case lifespan being same as previous drives per GB, and 2x and 4x for the 300GB and 600GB versions.

X25-M G2
80GB: 7.5TB
160GB: 15TB

Intel 320
40GB: 5
80GB: 10
120GB: 15
160GB: 15
300GB: 30
600GB: 60

What do these numbers mean? The 80GB G2 can only write 7.5TB worse-case? That doesn't seem right. Wouldn't 5000 * 80GB be closer to 400TB? And then worse case is writing 1 byte to each sector for something in the GB range?

Where does Intel publish these numbers anyway?

It is myunderstanding the RAID4 is only there to help prevent 25nm NAND failure.

So AES and slightly better writes is what you gain from the G3, at the expense of lower write cycle lifespan.

It doesn't really matter why the RAID 4 is there. If this "trick" makes the drive more reliable on the whole even with 25nm parts, then it's a good thing since consumers don't really care how something is done inside the black box. Same way SF uses compression as a "trick" to get better speeds most of the time.

At least according to Intel, the 320 had a failure rate of .2% in their testing compared to .5% of the G2, which probably means they're about the same since I don't think 2 vs 5/1000 is that significant. They're still giving the same line about 20GB/day for 5 years like with the G2, but 36TB seems pretty conservative.

 

[IntelUser2000]

What do these numbers mean? The 80GB G2 can only write 7.5TB worse-case? That doesn't seem right. Wouldn't 5000 * 80GB be closer to 400TB? And then worse case is writing 1 byte to each sector for something in the GB range?

The numbers are not that relevant. The important thing is that the 25nm NAND lifespan is the same 5,000 cycles on the 34nm generation, not degraded to any degree, or 3,000 for that matter. Being that its on the same controller solidifies this idea.

 

[Emulex]

seriously you have no idea the actual write cycles since its as variable as guessing the life of a 2TB cheapie drive. You can guess but it will probably last far past its life. I have a rotating image on a webcam. It records on movement. Cheap sandisk level 1 flash 2GB. it has been rotating images for 5 years now. still works. no errors. i'd say 100x the life was written to the sd card. impossible? yes but there are 9gb quantum atlas still pumping ultra-80 scsi joy to people 24x7 from the early 00's

 

[nanaki333]

in the age where the norm for SSDs are 400MB/s+ reads priced roughly the same as this intel... looks like this intel was DOA. i was heartbroken when i learned the 5xx series wasn't using intel's controller with those read and writes.

 

[Edrick]

That's not always true, but you keep insisting on it. Write lifespan varies wildly depending on the manufacturer. Intel is using the same 5k life span chips(though at 25nm) as the 34nm ones. Some 34nm chips for example, are already at 3k, like Hynix's.

I am not insisting, I said those are the numbers I keep seeing. And a quick Google on the topic and I am sure you will see those too. Of course they may not always be true and of course some NAND will be better than others.

You clearly have more information on the specific NAND types from various manufacturers. Thank you for clearing that up.

 

[Edrick]

As stated in AnandTech's review of the M4:

Micron rates its 25nm NAND at 3000 program/erase cycles. By comparison Intel's NAND, coming out of the same fab, is apparently rated at 5000 program/erase cycles. I asked Micron why there's a discrepancy and was told that the silicon's quality and reliability is fundamentally the same. It sounds like the only difference is in testing and validation methodology. In either case I've heard that most 25nm NAND can well exceed its rated program/erase cycles so it's a non-issue.

So it is not true for Intel drives, but it maybe true for other drives. So my numbers has some truth to them. ()

 

[Dark Shroud]

in the age where the norm for SSDs are 400MB/s+ reads priced roughly the same as this intel... looks like this intel was DOA. i was heartbroken when i learned the 5xx series wasn't using intel's controller with those read and writes.

This isn't DOA on the simple fact that most systems on the market right now do not have SATA 6gig ports. The 320 series were designed to be large capacity budget drives. I personally will buy the 300GB model if I can get it for less than $500. Just for games & software install drives these will be a win. Not to mention laptops & netbooks could benefit them.

It is annoying that the 510 series do not use Intel's own controller. But these are just a stop gap for the moment. I would certainly still pick one over a Sandforce drive.

I'm curious to see what Intel will do in regards to HSDL SSDs. Because I'd like HSDL or something similar for my boot drive. They just cost too much right now.