Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Intel ssd postville refresh on march 28th 3rd gen

philipma1957

philipma1957

macrumors 603
Original poster
Apr 13, 2010
6,416
283
Howell, New Jersey
http://vr-zone.com/articles/intel-first-25nm-ssd-on-march-28th-pricing-unveiled/11655.html

looks like it comes out next week;


Up to 39,500 IOPS random 4 KB reads; up to 23,000 IOPS random 4 KB writes
Full Disk Encryption via AES 128 bit Encryption Technology
Enhanced power loss management
1.2M hours MTBF
Intel® 25nm compute NAND
Available in 6 capacities; 40GB, 80GB, 120GB, 160GB, 300GB and 600GB, they are estimated to be priced at $109, $189, $239, $329, $569 and $1119 respectively.


$1119 for 600gb is more then I want to spend . Iops are better then the 510's that came out. I wonder what the controller is.
 
I'd like to see some benchmarks on the 300GB and 600GB models.

My G2 has worked perfectly for many, many months now. I just need more space.
 
From what I've heard this drive will do 160MB/s random speeds (4K), which is considerably higher than those of the Vertex3.

But $329 for the 160GB version? That's likely to be about 350€ in Europe, about as much as I paid for the G2 almost two years ago. I honestly expected them to be cheaper.
 
I think prices will be lower. Hopefully we'll see 40 GB under $100, 120GB under $200, 160GB under $300, and god willing, the 600GB under $1000 please.
 
Read an early review of the 80gb version and there isn't much improvement. In some cases the performance is worse. If this is true across the board I don't see much reason to upgrade considering the prices are pretty much the same. I'll wait for a more definitive review before I make a final decision.
 
Early benchmarks have it performing exactly the same as the G2 drives (if not worse in all important 4K RR). In fact, it appears to use the same controller as G2 but with 25nm NAND. Until 25nm production ramps up and prices come down, I would take a pass on this. In fact, the current crop of 25nm SSD's appears to have very little advantage over previous gen drives so far.
 
Cynicalone said:
I'd like to see some benchmarks on the 300GB and 600GB models.

My G2 has worked perfectly for many, many months now. I just need more space.
Click to expand...

This, currently, my 80 GB G2 has Windows and main applications in it. Remaining space is 40 GB, I don't want to use more because of the write degradation.

That said, with a 120 GB I can finally put some important apps that do need a speed boost.
 
Icaras said:
I think prices will be lower. Hopefully we'll see 40 GB under $100, 120GB under $200, 160GB under $300, and god willing, the 600GB under $1000 please.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. It's funny hearing for the past.. two years? to wait, wait wait when the next generation comes out these (as in current gen SSDs) will drop dramatically. I have not seen it. 120GB Vertex 2 still going for around $200 unless there is a sale, G2 80GB/160GB still a steady price for the past year. Only the sad Kingston SSD has seen any decent drops via sales but I would not even waste my time with one of those SSDs if I was spending the money. Anyway, more than happy with the performance on my Vertex 2 before I will look at the next generation SSD's. Unless of course a slickdeal pops up =D
 
Transporteur said:
Two reviews of the 320:

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=1102&type=expert&pid=1

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1579/1/

My thoughts: Very good 4k random performance, but in 2011 I certainly won't buy a 3Gb/s SATA SSD any more. The Vertex 3 is considerably faster than the Intel and cheaper as well.

Edit: Just checked the prices, the Vertex3 is actually more expensive.
Click to expand...

AnandTech also reviewed it. Anand's thoughts are pretty spot on IMO. 320 would have been a great SSD if had been released a half year ago, like it was supposed to according to some leaks.
 
Hellhammer said:
AnandTech also reviewed it. Anand's thoughts are pretty spot on IMO. 320 would have been a great SSD if had been released a half year ago, like it was supposed to according to some leaks.
Click to expand...

Well if you are a 2010 macPro owner or any macPro owner, Since none have a 6gb/s sata connection the intel is a good choice if reliability is as promised. Since cindori's app will give us trim I will just wait a bit and pick up an intel on the bay in a month or two.

Now if you have a MBP it looks like the ocz vetex 3 or the crucial m4 look good.

Price is as usual "f u" shut up and pay if want a good ssd.
 
jav6454 said:
Postville sucks... dam, Intel is going to loose the SSD market if they don't price these more aggressively (ie, cheaper!)
Click to expand...

Intel will lose the 2011 macbook pro market completely to ocz vertex 3 and crucial m4 ssd's if reliability is not far worse for vertex 3 and crucial m4. in terms of speed intel can't compete with the 510 or the 320 series.

so If I sell you an equally reliable crucial m4 512gb and an intel 320 series 600gb the crucial is about 180 bucks less and 50 percent faster.

Well lets see how reliability is for the intel 320 series.

The intel 510 series is having problems.



For mac pros most if not all the speed advantaged vanishes due to the 3gb/s sata 2 in the pros.

you know put in a crucial m4 in a fast 2011 mac book pro that has owc's 16gb ram and it will smoke a lot of desktops/workstations out there.
 
I have the Intel 160GB G2 in my 2009 Mac Pro... I have been VERY pleased with the drive... No issues and speed seems to be the same as new... Purchased it shortly after it was announced, had it every since.

Would I see any advantage of going to this drive? If so, what? Or is there something faster, more reliable, and cheaper?
 
3587 said:
I have the Intel 160GB G2 in my 2009 Mac Pro... I have been VERY pleased with the drive... No issues and speed seems to be the same as new... Purchased it shortly after it was announced, had it every since.

Would I see any advantage of going to this drive? If so, what? Or is there something faster, more reliable, and cheaper?
Click to expand...

First off if it ain't broke don't fix it.

The advantage is it comes in bigger sizes 300gb and 600gb.

The second advantage is maybe it is the most reliable :

over the following three;
1) owc
2)vertex
3) micron-crucial

I got tired of not having a big ssd so I sold all my ssd's off.. Right now I don't have any. But if I buy one for the mac pro it may be the intel based on "reliability".




I am looking to get a mac mini for 2011(new model when it comes out) if I do and it has a 6gbs sata jack I will buy the new crucial m4. I am thinking it would be very nice in a 6gb/s setup.

Now that I waited this long I will wait 4 to 6 weeks to see what ones work well. They still cost too much. Please don't tell me well go out and buy one to help bring the prices down. LOL

I have owned over 20 of them! Just got tired of them being too small or breaking.
 
Last edited:
3587 said:
I have the Intel 160GB G2 in my 2009 Mac Pro... I have been VERY pleased with the drive... No issues and speed seems to be the same as new... Purchased it shortly after it was announced, had it every since.

Would I see any advantage of going to this drive? If so, what? Or is there something faster, more reliable, and cheaper?
Click to expand...

There is no compelling reason for you to upgrade. As I pointed out above these 320s are not much different in performance where it matters, which is 4K reads/writes. In fact, at low queue depths, the G2 seems to outperform the G3!
 
V RAIN is right this drive is not a lot better the then g2.

Really I would only change from a 160 g2 intel if it was too small and I wanted the 300gb or 600gb models.
 
You should really compare the initial price of the G2 drives with these.

You do get twice the capacity going by the initial price.
 
Waiting for this one for a long time, 600GB, SATA-6GBs much improved read/write random 4k, that was the dream anyway. This drive is a bitter disappointment after reading that Anandtech review. Performance is pathetic and the lack of SATA-6Gbs is a p1sstake, this may have been reasonable for the last generation but the OCZ Vertex 3 smokes the intel in every benchmark mostly by a significant amount.
 
The ocz vertex 3 and the crucial m4 are both faster, But more so if you drop them in a 2011 macbookpro. They won't be much faster in the macPro.


Right now none of my computers have a 6gB/s sata jack.

My mac minis do not my macpro doesn't and forget the iMac. As a mac user the Intel may be best for me.
Size does matter and I want a large ssd that is silly reliable. If I owned a macbookpro this would tick me off.
 
drayon said:
Waiting for this one for a long time, 600GB, SATA-6GBs much improved read/write random 4k, that was the dream anyway. This drive is a bitter disappointment after reading that Anandtech review. Performance is pathetic and the lack of SATA-6Gbs is a p1sstake, this may have been reasonable for the last generation but the OCZ Vertex 3 smokes the intel in every benchmark mostly by a significant amount.
Click to expand...

philipma1957 said:
The ocz vertex 3 and the crucial m4 are both faster, But more so if you drop them in a 2011 macbookpro. They won't be much faster in the macPro.


Right now none of my computers have a 6gB/s sata jack.

My mac minis do not my macpro doesn't and forget the iMac. As a mac user the Intel may be best for me.
Size does matter and I want a large ssd that is silly reliable. If I owned a macbookpro this would tick me off.
Click to expand...

I think you both are reading too much into the performance numbers shown.

You wouldn't be able to distinguish the performance difference between them unless you do a lot of very large file transfers on a regular basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back