INTEL X25-V VALUE 40GB 2.5" SATA-II SOLID STATE HARD DRIVE @ £92.99 inc VAT
- Thread starter Slackworth
- Start date
Am I missing something here... £100~ for a 40GB 'VALUE' SSD. ~£200 for a 80GB 'MAINSTREAM' SSD.
It works out the same £ per GB, but the latter is more powerful. What is the point in having a 'Value' SSD if it is the same price as the higher editions?
It works out the same £ per GB, but the latter is more powerful. What is the point in having a 'Value' SSD if it is the same price as the higher editions?
me too!
Am I missing something here... £100~ for a 40GB 'VALUE' SSD. ~£200 for a 80GB 'MAINSTREAM' SSD.
It works out the same £ per GB, but the latter is more powerful. What is the point in having a 'Value' SSD if it is the same price as the higher editions?
the SSD controller, case, assembly, shipping etc all cost the same as the Mainstream version.
They have price gouged a bit though, I thought £70 was pretty fair considering the capacity and the drives limitations. At almost £100 though for low capacity boot drive purposes you may as well get a 32GB Indilinx drive like the Corsair x32, which has superior performance. If you need more than 30GB, you probably need more than 40GB. An OS, work apps and documents should take up less than 25GB for most people. If you're doing gaming or working with large graphical files a 40GB drive won't cut it any more than the 32GB one and you'll be looking at 64GB as a minimum.
Last edited:
The Kingston ones support TRIM too, they ship with the same firmware. Chileanllama confirmed this a few weeks ago.
Am I missing something here... £100~ for a 40GB 'VALUE' SSD. ~£200 for a 80GB 'MAINSTREAM' SSD.
It works out the same £ per GB, but the latter is more powerful. What is the point in having a 'Value' SSD if it is the same price as the higher editions?
^^ I agree - and for everyone that says get two and raid them - yep great idea - but remeber that trim dont work in raid
Not really, the second you put these in RAID 0 then TRIM is negated. In other words, yes it will fly at the start, but in no time at all it will be worse performance than the single 80GB SSD.
I understand it is for people that can't afford the other versions, but the fact of the matter is they are being ripped off left right and center.
EDIT: Not to mention the fact that these drives only have a write performance of 35MB/s which is shameful for an SSD drive. We are going backward in technology when we should be going forward.
Intel Slogan "Intel is working on the technology of the future today" - No you aren't you are regurgitating old technology, degrading it, and rebranding it. Then slapping a rip off price on the item – way to go Intel! (Maybe Intel and NVIDIA have been getting into bed lately?)
Last edited:
I think retail versions are always a bit more expensive. Once OEM disks feed through and other retailers get stock, it should drop a bit.
edit:
Their random write performance is still very impressive. With TRIM they will probably be better than the Kingston drives shown below.
Need to read this. http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3667
If you copy files a lot then, yes it might be rubbish. But for an OS drive?
Last edited:
You a picking out the bits you like though... what about the very first benchmark:
The point I am trying to make is that these drives cost exactly the same as £ per GB, yet their performance is awful in comparison.
EDIT: Yes it may be fine as a OS drive, but my point above still stands. If Intel really want to justify the 'Value' tag, then they need to bring it down to £60-£70. We all know that isn't going to happen though.
Like I said. When is high sequential write speed useful? I clearly acknowledged it. It wasn't explicit because you had mentioned it already.
The prices are actually $129 and $299 respectively for retail versions. So not same $/GB from intel.
Well the kingston drives sold out very quickly at stores which used to have them at £75-£80 a drive.
I still don't understand what you'd be doing on even an 80GB drive that would require high sustained write speeds. If there's a weakness to have its that (hence Intel drives having low sustained write speeds).
Last edited:
I didn’t mean to cause any offence
. I’m just trying to have a friendly computer debate .Although sequential write speeds aren't exactly useful as an OS drive, (except when you are installing the thing) it is considerably lower, it still stands as a disadvantage. As for random write speeds, it may not be as low compared to sequential, but it is still a down-grade in performance.
By cutting the performance of the M drive, to make a V drive, to such an extent, this should be reflected in the price. Especially considering SSD technology has moved on since the M drive was released. Even if OCUK are over pricing this drive (it's not my place to say), a RRP of $258 per 80GB for a V drive, is still asking far too much considering the points I just made. I find it mind boggling that you disagree?
I didn’t mean to cause any offence
Sorry, I didn't mean to come across defensive. Just saying I did appreciate the point when I made my post.
On paper perhaps. Its what the consumer makes of it. Also, hasn't it always been the case that larger drives with better performance have been better bang for buck? Samsung F3 with better and larger platters for example. Why would someone buy a 250GB drive?
I don't disagree that the current price is a bit high. But that was to be expected considering it has just come out. However, £60-£70 taking into VAT considerations would require the drive to be $85-$100 in states. At that price it would be an absolute bargain, as were the Kingston drives in the states. A bargain for me or you isn't necessarily good for Intel.
edit:
Its possible that the RRP for the X25-M is actually $269 rather than $299 I said, making your argument more convincing. $299 is what those stores with stock are actually charging for the retail drive.
Last edited: