Intel X25M OEM G2 160GB SSD $414.99 SHIPPED at NewEgg

Anyone ever publish why the Intel X25-M has such slow sequential write performance compared to the competition and even Intel's X25-E? Source

Weird Q: how does one become a Cranky or Happy member?

1) Have more than 6 posts
2) Be cranky or happy
3) Check your user profile

qube said: Read on PCPerthe new TRIM firmware (that was subsequently pulled) bumped those speeds from 80 to 100. I have a feeling it will jump beyond that with the real TRIM firmware.

Anandtech reports Intel will republish the firmware that boosts the write speeds to 100MB/s at the end of this month.

Don't be fooled by the write speeds though, it depends on what file size. It's the random 4kb write speeds and the access latencies that are faster than any other SSD out there and allow Intel's drives to perform better than most.

Wow, so tempting to bite on this. Too bad I just dropped $400 on dental work - as a helpful note don't delay dental care, it only hurts your wallet more in the end. To buy or not though... Regardless, green for OP!

EDIT: Jumped in for one, couldn't resist - thanks OP!

It's also bad form to act like the forum police when you are not. BTW I'm NOT a newbie here! Let the mods handle these post. I was one of the people who bought this SSD from Newegg when it first came out for $449. I recently complained to them about the price gouging. This is a great deal and the lowest price I have ever seen on this SSD. I'm very happy with mine. Don't forget to get a 2.5 - 3.5 inch adapter if you want to mount this in your desktop case.

Chupa said: TroyKReese said: Weird Q: how does one become a Cranky or Happy member?


FWIW it's considered bad form to "hijack" a thread like this, but you are new, so now you know. You are subject to massive red when you hijack. As to your question look in "My account" -> Forum -> User Profile.

Out of curiosity, aside from those with money to burn, what type of consumer buys something like this?

In a laptop that you use often and move around a lot....there is no going back to a traditional hard drive. I have lost more than enough data due to jolts, bumps and other unforeseeable nonsense. With SSD you don't have to worry about that. Figure if you are going to drop some coin on something, get the best.

jraynorlxx said: killme2 said: Anyone ever publish why the Intel X25-M has such slow sequential write performance compared to the competition and even Intel's X25-E? SourceX25-M is MLC based
X25-E is SLC based
In general, MLC is a cheaper than SLC and fits home & office use. SLC is better in speed, lifespan etc but costs much more and fits server better. I don't think that's it. That doesn't explain why the competitors' products are faster. They are using MLC and they are getting better performance. Intel's sequential write speed is on par with the Seagate 500GB drive and the WD VelociRaptor 300GB beats it by about 40MBps.

By that same logic, then you would never buy a TV, DVD Player, and most other home electronics as they all have a 1 year warranty. All PC's in general have a 1 year warranty, so why is it that all of a sudden an SSD drive has 1 year warranty is out of bounds as it is an OEM product (which co-incides with what most built PC's and laptops warranty periods are). If you want the 3 year warranty, you buy the retail product, which is more expensive in order to cover the cost associated with the longer warranty. It's a simple trade-off. But look at say, Apple, most everybody who owns their products believe that they are indeed great products, and they all have a 1 year warranty, does that mean you wouldn't buy an apple product because it only has 1 year warranty? You want a 3 year warranty, buy an extended warranty for 3 years, brings up your cost, but someone has to pay for the warranty.

dantehu said: qube said: dantehu said: 34nm.....disadvantage
less than 3000 write

Citation needed.

http://www.solidata-ssd.com/ssd_tips.htm

OR do your own research by googling "intel write cycle 34nm"

quote from http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:3FWqnXscpXEJ:www.engadget.co...

Flash is based on keeping a number of electrons in a cell and the count of them determining the value of the cell, with each write cycle slightly damaging the cell (making it 'leak' electrons more quickly), smaller process features will mean fewer read cycles and lower data retention times. An article series at Tech-On! (Japanese site) mentioned that the numbers for these variables are by now dropping to as low as 3,000 write cycles (from 100k for old-style SLC Flash) and data retention of 1 year (down from ~10 years).


34nm is double bladed

You are quoting from a questionable, etailer's FAQ page? That is just lame.
According to Intel, it has 5+ year with 100GB/day write. For most users, I'd say about <5GB/day which means the lifecycle is almost infinite.

Try googling again or try wiki.
"Flash-memory cells have limited lifetimes and will often wear out after 1,000 to 10,000 write cycles for MLC, and up to 100,000 write cycles for SLC.[38][39][40][41] Special file systems or firmware designs can mitigate this problem by spreading writes over the entire device, called wear leveling.[42]"

Your take home word is "wear-leveling".

It's a decent price!!!

Edit: Went for the 160GB

I'm in for one. Too good to pass up.

c'mon intel hurry up and get this down to $2/gb so i will buy