Intel x-25 $399 at newegg

[jtabler]

It's still not a jumping in price for me, but for those waiting for a more reasonable price, this is a very good sign.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16820167005

I wonder when HDDs will be a thing of the past in new desktop computers. 2012? 2013?

 

[taltamir]

sweet!

It will be quite some time, WD just released a 2TB HDD today with a 250$ MSRP. But by next year we should be seeing a lot of computer with a primary SSD and a secondary spindle drive for storage.
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2271346&enterthread=y

 

[ArizonaSteve]

Drop it to half the price or offer a two for one deal, and I might be interested.

 

[jtabler]

Originally posted by: ArizonaSteve
Drop it to half the price or offer a two for one deal, and I might be interested.

More like increase the capacity by four!

 

[jtabler]

Originally posted by: taltamir
It will be quite some time

Well, for those of us 30+, we'll be able to brag that our first computers didn't have hard drives. Then we'll be able to brag that our current computers don't have hard drives!

 

[Blain]

Did you mean to post this in the "Hot Deals" forum? :roll:

 

[nenforcer]

when I installed Vista for the first time almost 2 years ago I couldn't believe it took up something like 70GB for a clean install.

I will wait until the SLC SSD get much larger than they currently are because you can't even install Vista!

 

[taltamir]

i can't remember if my first computer had a harddrive when i bought it, or did i purchase one as an upgrade... i also can't remember if it was 60MB or 600MB hardrive... i do remember that i started with the 5 inch floppies, and 1MB of ram... and later upgraded by putting in another 8MB for a total of 9MB of ram.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: nenforcer
when I installed Vista for the first time almost 2 years ago I couldn't believe it took up something like 70GB for a clean install.

I will wait until the SLC SSD get much larger than they currently are because you can't even install Vista!

vista never took 70GB for a full install... vista and ALL my installed programs take 44GB on my HDD right now... and most of it is programs and their data...

 

[n7]

Damn...makes the "deal" i got on mine a couple months ago, well, it's no longer a deal...

 

[coolVariable]

Vista + Office 2007 + Onenote + Photoshop CS2 + bunch of other programs = 27GB (less probably if I cleaned out the shadow copies and the system restore points)

did you mean 7GB for a Vista clean install without any programs? that is probably correct.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: n7
Damn...makes the "deal" i got on mine a couple months ago, well, it's no longer a deal...

ah, but you got it back than, a couple of months ago , you paid extra 200$ for the privilege of having it 2 months before anyone who buy it now... Don't worry, it will be worthless in about a year

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: taltamir
Don't worry, it will be worthless in about a year

 

[taltamir]

what? you know how it is when you are an early adopter , you pay an arm and a leg and it devalues so fast afterwards...
Sorry if that came out mean.

 

[taltamir]

mmm, it took 4 months... so that is only 50$ per month drop in price for the intel X25-M... i pay twice as much for the maid.

 

[n7]

LOL i am well aware of the cost of being an early adopter.

Let me wallow in my pity though

 

[Majic 7]

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16291 Here's a test from Tech Report comparing 4 X25s in raid vs. a number of different setups including just one X25. Has their usual array of tests. Not really interested in 2000$ worth of stuff but it's nice to compare the single X25 against everything else. The raid setup is interesting but the thought of 2000$ gives me a tic.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Majic 7
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16291 Here's a test from Tech Report comparing 4 X25s in raid vs. a number of different setups including just one X25. Has their usual array of tests. Not really interested in 2000$ worth of stuff but it's nice to compare the single X25 against everything else. The raid setup is interesting but the thought of 2000$ gives me a tic.

I'm not sure if that quite dated Pentium 4 processor is actually running those benches in a way that taxes the disk sub-system anything like what the majority of people have in their computers nowadays.

I pity the fool that puts $2k of SSD gear into a 3-4 year old computer system.

The disk-reviews on techreport are really lacking robustness.

The Acard review they did was on the same craptastic 2005 computer system using software raid on an antiquated ICHR7 (!!!) raid chipset. I mean for the love of god they got $10k worth of Acard review gear in-house and they bung-hole it for lack of a modern $100 LGA775 mobo.

Show me a comparison of SSD's and spindle disks using a modern 45nm processor combined with a hardware raid card that is designed for speed (something like an areca with a couple GB of cache on it) and then we'll see if the benefits of $2k worth of SSD kit make the rest of your invest a little speedier.

In the meantime I'm hoping techreport can step up to a $300 upgrade and put something a little more modern to work in their reviews. It's really quite embarrassing, if I were Intel I'd send the guys a fully loaded i7 and ask them to redo the review.

 

[Majic 7]

Crud, I didn't even check the test page. They must be using it so they can keep all the old data they got with it over the years. Wouldn't want them to have to retest. All I wanted to know is will it will be worth it when capacity goes up and price comes down. Have to find another review I guess.

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Majic 7
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16291 Here's a test from Tech Report comparing 4 X25s in raid vs. a number of different setups including just one X25. Has their usual array of tests. Not really interested in 2000$ worth of stuff but it's nice to compare the single X25 against everything else. The raid setup is interesting but the thought of 2000$ gives me a tic.

I'm not sure if that quite dated Pentium 4 processor is actually running those benches in a way that taxes the disk sub-system anything like what the majority of people have in their computers nowadays.

I pity the fool that puts $2k of SSD gear into a 3-4 year old computer system.

The disk-reviews on techreport are really lacking robustness.

The Acard review they did was on the same craptastic 2005 computer system using software raid on an antiquated ICHR7 (!!!) raid chipset. I mean for the love of god they got $10k worth of Acard review gear in-house and they bung-hole it for lack of a modern $100 LGA775 mobo.

Show me a comparison of SSD's and spindle disks using a modern 45nm processor combined with a hardware raid card that is designed for speed (something like an areca with a couple GB of cache on it) and then we'll see if the benefits of $2k worth of SSD kit make the rest of your invest a little speedier.

In the meantime I'm hoping techreport can step up to a $300 upgrade and put something a little more modern to work in their reviews. It's really quite embarrassing, if I were Intel I'd send the guys a fully loaded i7 and ask them to redo the review.

I noticed this too IDC. Initially, I did a "double-take" and thought I had happened upon a very old review. I certainly don't see any issues reviewing modern tech with a 4-year old computer (/sarcasm)...

Considering it is not that cost prohibitive to up their testing system to a 45nm quad with 4-8GB or RAM, I wonder what their rational is to keep this old bench system in their reviews? ICH7? Gimme a break!

 

[IntelUser2000]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: taltamir
Don't worry, it will be worthless in about a year

Don't worry, crappy next generation devices are still crappy devices.

By the end of the year, we'll see 34nm Intel drives anyway.