Intel New SSD's next month?

The C400 Micron, which should be called M4 at Crucial is in the starting blocks. As expected, it uses MLC memory in 25 nm and several versions exist. Micron separates the high-capacity models (128, 256 and 512 GB) 64 GB model, named C400v (as value). The classic C400 are announced to 415 MB / s sequential read and 260 MB / s sequential write, except the 128 GB version which is limited to 175 Mb / s.

IOPS, Micron said 40,000 IOPS random read and 50 000 IOPS random write, except the 128 GB which is given to 35,000 IOPS. The lifetime is given for the three models to 72 TB of data, half written sequentially and in random half. Micron says 5% of files of 4 KB, 8 KB 5%, 10% of 16 kb, 10 kb of 32%, 35% to 64% and 35 kb to 128 kb.

The MTBF is 1.2 million hours. Three variants exist for each capacity: 2.5-inch SATA classic and 9.5 mm thick, 2.5 inches 7 mm thick and 1.8 inch MicroSat and 5 mm thick. Performances should not move. C400v the 64 GB also comes in three sizes and performance is lower: 415 MB / s sequential read, 95 MB / s sequential write, 40,000 IOPS random read and 20,000 IOPS random write.

The MTBF is the same (1.2 million hours), but endurance increased from 72 to 36 TB The price and release date are not known, but the current C300 are listed as "EOL" (End Of Life), indicating that the C400 should arrive soon.
Click to expand...

http://hardware-post.blogspot.com/2011/03/crucial-c400-and-c400v-production.html
 
So if these are the initial specs for the "Value" model, is there going to be a performance model? If so, I want those specs.
 
00011 said:
Oh Tay, got it. I have to buy a 256GB model just to get the fastest. :(

Except, still no mention of 4K random read performance.
Click to expand...

It's all there in the article. 40k random read IOPS for all the models, and 50k random write IOPS for the 512gb and 256gb models, 35k for the 128gb, and 20k for the 64gb.
 
Karndog said:
It's all there in the article. 40k random read IOPS for all the models, and 50k random write IOPS for the 512gb and 256gb models, 35k for the 128gb, and 20k for the 64gb.
Click to expand...

I'm such a noob so please forgive me but I thought the 4KB random read test was the most important factor for day to day use with an SSD so when you tell me the
40K random read test is in the article, I'm like what?

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4159/35428.png

Like this chart!
 
Last edited:
john4200 said:
I am beginning to think that the Marvell controller makes it difficult to achieve high 4KB performance (Micron must have had to work hard at it), but easy to achieve high sequential results. Intel does seem to have squeezed higher sequentials out of the Marvell controller than Corsair did. If you are looking for incompressible-data sequential write speed, the 250GB Intel 510 is the performance leader, beating even the Vertex 3.
Click to expand...

To cut to the chase, is this Marvell controller better or worse than whatever controller that c/w Intel 160GB SSD? If it's worse, what's wrong w/ it?
 
Happy Hopping said:
To cut to the chase, is this Marvell controller better or worse than whatever controller that c/w Intel 160GB SSD? If it's worse, what's wrong w/ it?
Click to expand...

It depends I guess, better sequential writes, trade-offs in other areas... It's not a clear cut improvement across the board but it's not inferior either. Personally I'm sitting on an 80GB X25-M G2 and capacity is the only reason I'm looking to upgrade this year, otherwise I'd wait it out 'till 25nm is very mature and prices have plummeted. Sure these drives are significantly faster than 1st/2nd gen SSDs, but any SSD is such a massive improvement over a HDD that unless you're really demanding the difference between any decent SSD will seem relatively narrow (putting reliability and issues w/sustained performance over time aside).

I still work a lot on many systems besides my own, none of which have a SSD... So I haven't yet taken the upgrade for granted, in fact having a SSD on my desktop has kinda spoiled me. :eek: I'm disappointed that mass market adoption hasn't boomed just yet, I guess it'll take one or two more big price drops.
 
Impulse said:
I'm disappointed that mass market adoption hasn't boomed just yet, I guess it'll take one or two more big price drops.
Click to expand...
I think the mass market is starting to enter ssd, and they huge demand is keeping them high, i would think maybe couple of years more and it will lower.
 
I think the lower capacity (60-120) Sandforce 2000 drives will have a real edge in random write, when they come out.
 
I suppose a better question, is there any noticeable speed difference detected by the user.
 
I posted this as it's own thread but I'm not sure anyone will take the time to open it. SO please forgive my intrusion here but it's related to Intel's naming scheme.

What's the difference between the normal X25-M drives and the more expensive varieties that have the word "Mainstream" in the name?
 
Sorry if this has been discussed, but why on earth are these new 310's NOT SATA3?
 
Please be careful, the new SSDs I mentioned are the 320 series. The 310 series is something completely different (mini-PCIe cards).

As for why the 320 series is SATA 3Gbps, you'd have to ask Intel. They were slow to adopt 6Gbps SATA for some reason.
 
john4200 said:
Please be careful, the new SSDs I mentioned are the 320 series. The 310 series is something completely different (mini-PCIe cards).

As for why the 320 series is SATA 3Gbps, you'd have to ask Intel. They were slow to adopt 6Gbps SATA for some reason.
Click to expand...

Doh! Meant the 320s, thanks.
 
I think the 510 series is ment to cover sata 6, The g3 will do fine without it other than looking at benchmarks people need larger ssd's with better pricing not more speed.

I also believe intel is already looking past Sata 6 which is already a bottleneck.
 
If they're comparable to a G2 but significantly cheaper (120GB for under $150) I'd bite, otherwise they're pointless unless they're just gonna market the heck out of them. We're already seeing last gen 120 gb drives approaching $170 or so during specials, most enthusiasts would just spend the extra $30-50 on the newer top end drives.
 
Prices seem ok, because of the extra space on the 160GB-300GB drives.

The Intel 510, Vertex 3, and C400/M4 are all 250-256GB drives in the $500-$600 price range so there is a fair size advantage for the 300GB G3 @ $569. Trading performance for space isn't a bad idea since SSD are already so fast.

Available in 5 capacities; 40GB, 80GB, 120GB, 160GB, 300GB and 600GB, they are estimated to be priced at $109, $189, $239, $329, $569 and $1119 respectively.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The lack of SATA 6G is disappointing. On the bright side, the 320s seem to have very high random read/write IOPS (40K/20K), which is one of the better benchmarks for system "snappiness".
 
Benchmarks: http://en.expreview.com/2011/03/23/world-exclusive-review-intel-g3-ssd-80gb/15569.html

Marginal improvements and usage of sata2 despite the fact it's a bottleneck for any SSD manufactured in the last 2 years. Highly disappointing. This is the kind of crap you'd expect from Apple, not Intel.

They better be cheap as hell, because they will be the slowest ssd's of 2011. AFAIK Intel has no more consumer SSDs planned for 2011.
 
Last edited:
Relativistic said:
Benchmarks: http://en.expreview.com/2011/03/23/world-exclusive-review-intel-g3-ssd-80gb/15569.html

Marginal improvements and usage of sata2 despite the fact it's a bottleneck for any SSD manufactured in the last 2 years. Highly disappointing. This is the kind of crap you'd expect from Apple, not Intel.

They better be cheap as hell, because they will be the slowest ssd's of 2011. AFAIK Intel has no more consumer SSDs planned for 2011.
Click to expand...
I'm reserving judgement until I read Anand's review, but so far definitely looks disappointing
 
has any buy these 510 series SSD, I want to get some feedback as to how that controller is vs. intel's controller
 
A fair amount of people have them since they are readily available.

I got the 120GB one because I couldn't wait. What exactly do you want to know?
 
Relativistic said:
Benchmarks: http://en.expreview.com/2011/03/23/world-exclusive-review-intel-g3-ssd-80gb/15569.html
Click to expand...

from the above link:

Intel 320 series 80GB SSD pack 25nm MLC NAND memory chips and feature performance improvement,however,the number of write cycles per cell is decreased from 5,000 in 34nm NAND to 3,000 in 25nm.
Click to expand...

I don't like sound of that. So what if the 3K write cycle is over. What would happens? Shit out of luck on your SSD?

for the price and the loss of speed, you may as well go w/ the 510 for 250GB instead

Is the tech. review writer qualify? There is no last name, just a name Jennifer, what's her qualification to write this review?
 
JohnleMVP said:
A fair amount of people have them since they are readily available.

I got the 120GB one because I couldn't wait. What exactly do you want to know?
Click to expand...

any problem w/ that Marvell controller? Any problem w/ the SSD in general? Any glitches?
 
Considering the Marvell controller has been used in many SSD's from Crucial, Corsair, and now Intel it should be pretty solid. No glitches.
 
JohnleMVP said:
Good grammar was probably one of the qualifications.
Click to expand...

Maybe not...

After after taking apart aluminum cover,we can see ten 25nm MLC NAND chips to form 10 flash memory channel at the front side of PCB,and it leaves space for memory chip at the back side of PCB,where the bigger capacity model can be got by adding memory chip to expand capacity.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top