Intel X25-M G2 Solid State Drives

miniyazz said:
The cost of the controller starts having a larger and larger effect on overall price.
When I was running a clean WinXP install it was 5-7GB (can't remember exact figures but in that region). Page file might've made a GB, hibernation if enabled might've made another GB but presumably less as 512mb RAM installed. I'm hard pushed to see how you use so little space.. and bear in mind the Windows directory by itself is not that useful being SSDd. The advantages come from having Program Files as well as Windows being on. Anyway, if you really want, you can buy a netbook SSD.. hardly as fast, but it'll be relatively small and cheap.
Click to expand...
My XP install:
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwl.jpg

I forgot about the pagefile. I think 32GB may be the sweet spot for me, I think having programs on the SSD would help also so I may go for one of these, thanks for the info, but I think I'd rather avoid a netbook SSD and put the money towards a "real" one. :)
 
MikeHunt79 said:
My XP install:
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwl.jpg

I forgot about the pagefile. I think 32GB may be the sweet spot for me, I think having programs on the SSD would help also so I may go for one of these, thanks for the info, but I think I'd rather avoid a netbook SSD and put the money towards a "real" one. :)
Click to expand...

Agreed, netbook SSDs should be avoided. Just make sure you get a decent one,no jmicron rubbish!
 
fross said:
Speaking of putting OSes on SSDs, obviously one would want the page file on there for speed purposes, but isn't that the sort of application that would burn through sectors with massive amounts of writes?
Click to expand...

I know if it were my system i get some more ram and ditch the pagefile all together.
 
clocka said:
if only the write speed was 130mb/s instead of 80mb/s :(
Click to expand...

From page 2...

Why sustainted writes are not so important.

The sustained write speed is not a big issue. What matters most with SSD's or HDD's is random read/write performance, and it's gone up even more with these new ones. I've owned enough SSD's to know this first hand.
Higher sustained read/writes are sometimes more important for advertising than actual user benefit as the manufacture often has to sacrifice random read/write performance, which is FAR more important and used FAR more than sustained read/write.

Anand also points this out with the OCZ Vertex before they fixed the problem of these SSD's before release:
"As soon as I hit the desktop I knew there was a problem; all of my icons took longer than they should’ve to load. It took about 30 minutes of actual usage for the drive to stutter and within a couple of hours performance got so unbearable that I had to pull it out."

Thats what you get from poor random read/write performance. Because OCZ are not arse bandits they listened to Anand and now have great fast, non-stuttering drives. But it meant sacrificing some sustained read/write performance for advertising purposes, for the uninformed mases. A tough decision for a company.

Unless a user is constantly copying very large files (in the GB's) with these intel SSD's then the lower sustained write will be a issue, although it still wont exactly be slow at it. But who constantly does this?
The vast amount of stuff people do requires good random read/write of smaller files -- game loading, game/software installing, opening/closing software, OS responsiveness, computer start up/shut down - these drives will be the fastest around for this. The first gen intel drives are already the fastest at these things.
 
Last edited:
In responce to intels new SSD's OCZ will be lowering there prices on some of there SSD's.

On that page is also info about OCZ's new Colossus SSD's in 3.5" size.
This is not just a Vertex in a 3.5" chassis, but rather multiple Vertex drives running in parallel but appearing as one large drive. OCZ is aiming square at the high end desktop user for this thing and it's priced well. The Colossus 120 provides a nice price point between Intel's 80GB and 160GB drives. The 1TB drive is pure insanity.
Click to expand...

The performance on these Colosus SSD's should then be more than the new Intels (as they seem to be a couple or more OCZ Vertex drives running in RAID in a single package), and with lower cost per GB.
 
If people are slightly concerned about the life of the drive, then don't be, especially a drive such as the Intel X25-M G1 and G2. Companies have given a figure of about 20GB of writes that even if a user does write 20GB of data to their drive every day, then the drive will last 5 years. Intel have gone one step further and have said that a user will be able to write 100GB of data to their solid state drives every day and the drive will remain intact for 5 years. This really isn't a concern to anyone.
 
Last edited:
If anyone is looking at purchasing the new Intel X25-M G2 solid state drives, then I have just received word from Slackworth that Overclockers should be getting these drives in on Monday.

I will be purchasing one of these drives and when I receive it, I'll run the HD Tach, CrystalDiskMark, ATTO and HD Tune benchmark programs and see how it compares to the Intel X25-M G1 Solid State Drive. Duke is also testing the OCZ Summit solid state drive in this thread here.
 
Last edited:
yashiro said:
Intel SSD - Over £2 per Gig. (2.175)
WD Veloci - 50p per Gig.
WD Black - 7p per Gig.

Cheaper than before, yep. Cheap enough, nope.
Click to expand...

No one buys SSD for the GB of storage they buy them for the speed. It is wrong to think about price per GB. You should be thinking about price per speed.
 
It is wrong to think about price per GB
Click to expand...
No it isn't. People will settle on the best price/performance ratio that they deem suitable.
While speed factors into choice, paying 30 times more per Gigabyte is not justifiable to most.

Even tech hungry folk on here generally go for a hybrid solution of small SSD/large HD.
Simply because SSD's of sufficient capacity are too expensive to hold all of your data.
 
Last edited:
Fire Wizard said:
If anyone is looking at purchasing the new Intel X25-M G2 solid state drives, then I have just received word from Slackworth that Overclockers should be getting these drives in on Monday.

I will be purchasing one of these drives and when I receive it, I'll run the HD Tach, CrystalDiskMark, ATTO and HD Tune benchmark programs and see how it compares to the Intel X25-M G1 Solid State Drive. Duke is also testing the OCZ Summit solid state drive in this thread here.
Click to expand...


I'll be joining you with that. :)


But I'm away from Sun till Tuesday so I won't be able to order if they do go up on Monday. You going for 80gb model?
 
shame ocuk seems to be behind so much in adding new items to pre-order, ocuk used to be known for adding pre-order first and getting stock first but that seems to have stopped now:(
 
yashiro said:
Even tech hungry folk on here generally go for a hybrid solution of small SSD/large HD.
Simply because SSD's of sufficient capacity are too expensive to hold all of your data.
Click to expand...

Urm, that's just my point! The fact that people do that, get a small SSD then a TB plus of conventional hard disc shows that SSD price per GB isn't that important. Whether it's 5x 10x or 20x more expensive is irrelevant as mass storage is handled by the conventional drive. I'll say again, SSDs are bought for speed not storage so price should be considered against speed not capacity.
 
Last edited:
clocka said:
shame ocuk seems to be behind so much in adding new items to pre-order, ocuk used to be known for adding pre-order first and getting stock first but that seems to have stopped now:(
Click to expand...


They're probably waiting to see what everyone else prices their new Intels, you can guarantee all the retailers make a killing on these drives :)
 
Tbh I'm not really interested in the 80Gb Intel, it's either a 120Gb or 160Gb drive for me, shame Intel insists of using different to sizes to literally everyone else. It's also a shame the write is just so damn slow on the Intels. Despite the protests above about transfer speeds not being important, they are. I don't want to be taking longer to install programs/windows on my SSD than I was on my traditional hard disks beforehand.
 
Last edited:
People talk about the write speeds being low...I always thought 70MB/s was pretty good for a write speed?

What write speed would I expect on my laptop 5400rpm hard drive?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom