As far as I know those are the US dollar equivalents of the price a UK retailer has listed as a preorder or something. The US pricing is supposed to be $280 for the 120 gig drive, and $580 for the 250 gig drive. Street prices of course are probably going to be higher than that for a while unless intel can flood the market with them. They're on the 34nm NAND too as john mentioned, so I'm happy they're priced where they are. All that remains is to see if the real world performance is worth the premium.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Intel New SSD's next month?
- Thread starter zod96
- Start date
As far as I know those are the US dollar equivalents of the price a UK retailer has listed as a preorder or something. The US pricing is supposed to be $280 for the 120 gig drive, and $580 for the 250 gig drive. Street prices of course are probably going to be higher than that for a while unless intel can flood the market with them. They're on the 34nm NAND too as john mentioned, so I'm happy they're priced where they are. All that remains is to see if the real world performance is worth the premium.
Abula
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2004
- Messages
- 1,036
+1, his statement is correct, the 510s are like faster G2 32nm ssd, the only thing that makes me wonder is by the rumors they even seem faster than what the G3 will be, so idk what to buy now. Maybe old tweak tech could be better than the new 25nm.... decisions.
MagicMan84
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2008
- Messages
- 326
The G3 would be used in Laptops, or those without a 6.0 bus. The faster 510 series for those with high-end desktops. That's how I always looked at it anyway...
ray10201020
n00b
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2011
- Messages
- 3
I have read a review of intel 510 series (https://picasaweb.google.com/115607942538231455851/SSD#), because the test is based on sata 2, so the sequence read and write speed is lower than intel claims.
4k random read/write speed is even lower than g2. I do not know why intel would so rush to release another 34nm SSD rather than agreed 25nm SSD. A friend of mine who work at Intel told me that there is a technology problem with 25nm NAND and would delay to release G3 (Q3 or Q4?) That's why 510 series is coming out. But you need to know that 510 series does not use its own flash memory, instead, it uses Toshiba's. Plus, the price is too high than I expect (http://uk.insight.com/en-gb/apps/pr...hp?alert=categoryresults&product_id=ITGA07PSX)
I personally would rather to choose intel g2 as they are the best (speed, reliable) SSD in the market. 25nm SSD would reduce the 4k read/write performance and a faster algorithm is required to make it up.
4k random read/write speed is even lower than g2. I do not know why intel would so rush to release another 34nm SSD rather than agreed 25nm SSD. A friend of mine who work at Intel told me that there is a technology problem with 25nm NAND and would delay to release G3 (Q3 or Q4?) That's why 510 series is coming out. But you need to know that 510 series does not use its own flash memory, instead, it uses Toshiba's. Plus, the price is too high than I expect (http://uk.insight.com/en-gb/apps/pr...hp?alert=categoryresults&product_id=ITGA07PSX)
I personally would rather to choose intel g2 as they are the best (speed, reliable) SSD in the market. 25nm SSD would reduce the 4k read/write performance and a faster algorithm is required to make it up.
ray10201020
n00b
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2011
- Messages
- 3
No, I saw the pictures on the internet, the test was on the TOSHIBA R700 laptop, but I think it wont improve a lot even if you run the test on a desktop
Abula
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2004
- Messages
- 1,036
All laptops using the past generation of i5/7 had an issue with the chipset and 4k random writes, to increase it some, close to what a desktop chipset can deliver, its needed to change some registry settings, increase the power plan, and some other tweaks that increase the heat of the cpu, for some is worth it for some its not, you can read more about it 'Laptops w. Intel Series 5 chipset can not take full advantage of fast SSDs', the R700 is based on those chipsets. The same behavior happens to all ssds in those chipsets, regardless of brand, size, or brand.
The 510 imo should be tested at least with intel x58 board, prefereably with sb intel sata III based, to see what is really capable.
The 510 imo should be tested at least with intel x58 board, prefereably with sb intel sata III based, to see what is really capable.
nice info, thanks
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,544
The street price of a G2 Intel 160GB is $300, using simple ratio calculation, if there were a G2 inel 250GB, it would have been $468.75
Who would pay 767, as in $300 more for a 6 GB/s drive?
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,544
1) Where's your source for the above?
2) For those of us who have a motherboard which support up to 3 GB/s SATA, what's the benefit on a 6 GB/s SATA SSD drive? Say I get an Adaptec controller that is 6 GB/s, would there be a bottom neck from the Adaptec talking to the motherboard? Would that speed be downgrade to 3 GB/s?
What street is that? Most prices I see are around $400.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,544
ebay, most of them close at 300
So, you are comparing the open-box or used price for the G2 SSD to the manufacturer suggested retail price for the new model of SSD.
In contrast, I think you will find that most people will compare the retail price of one to the retail price of the other when making their buying decisions (and of course they will look at other considerations, such as performance).
Or get a 320 series in 160GB instead of a 510 series.
when are those coming out? specs? I haven't seen anything about them
and I bought some beef jerky today, what does that have to do with this thread?
The 320 series are what people have been calling the G3 -- they are the 25nm flash successors to the X25-M. They will come out in all the current X25-M sizes, as well as 300GB and 600GB. There is not yet an official release date from Intel, but rumors are real soon now.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,544
Here's a rhetorical question:
PCIe x 32 support up to 16 GB/s
PCIe x 16 support up 8 Gb/s
PCIe x 8 support up to 4 GB/s
The best SATA 6gb/s controller c/w PCIe x 8, which is 4Gb/s. So how can you get a 6GB/s performance drive on a 4Gb/s lane?
My motherboard is SATA 2, which is only 3Gb/s, so the only people that can use the new intel 510 series, is the 1s that has 6gb/s MB. How many of you have 1 of those ?
PCIe x 32 support up to 16 GB/s
PCIe x 16 support up 8 Gb/s
PCIe x 8 support up to 4 GB/s
The best SATA 6gb/s controller c/w PCIe x 8, which is 4Gb/s. So how can you get a 6GB/s performance drive on a 4Gb/s lane?
My motherboard is SATA 2, which is only 3Gb/s, so the only people that can use the new intel 510 series, is the 1s that has 6gb/s MB. How many of you have 1 of those ?
Cyberbeing
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
- Messages
- 570
You are mixing up Gigabit (Gb) and Gigabyte (GB).
SATA 2.0 is 3 Gb/s (300 MB/s) per port.
SATA 3.0 is 6 Gb/s (600 MB/s) per port.
PCIe 2.0 x4 gives 16 Gb/s (2 GB/s) of bandwidth.
PCIe 2.0 x8 gives 32 Gb/s (4 GB/s) of bandwidth.
PCIe 2.0 x16 gives 64 Gb/s (8 GB/s) of bandwidth.
SATA 2.0 is 3 Gb/s (300 MB/s) per port.
SATA 3.0 is 6 Gb/s (600 MB/s) per port.
PCIe 2.0 x4 gives 16 Gb/s (2 GB/s) of bandwidth.
PCIe 2.0 x8 gives 32 Gb/s (4 GB/s) of bandwidth.
PCIe 2.0 x16 gives 64 Gb/s (8 GB/s) of bandwidth.
and I bought some beef jerky today, what does that have to do with this thread?
Are you blind? People here are talking about 160/240 GB SSD prices between different brands. And that's why I said I bought a 160 GB for $280 + tax. Your post is the useless one.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,544
my bad, thanks for pointing it out
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,403
Abula
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2004
- Messages
- 1,036
Some brief tests were runed by PC Perspective, interestingly intel went with marvel controllers.... i was hopping to see their own. But at least its delivering what intel offered, just wondering about random write/read.
It uses Intel 34 nm, MLC, NAND flash, not 3rd-party flash.
But the controller is a Marvell 88SS9174-BKK2, and that wasn't developed in-house at Intel (obviously). It's the successor to the Marvell 88SS9174-BJP2 used in the Crucial C300. I don't know for sure if it's the same controller going into the Crucial C4/M4/Micron C400 (whatever the successor to the C300 is going to be called), but I would guess that it is.
It seems to be a very high-performance chip.
But the controller is a Marvell 88SS9174-BKK2, and that wasn't developed in-house at Intel (obviously). It's the successor to the Marvell 88SS9174-BJP2 used in the Crucial C300. I don't know for sure if it's the same controller going into the Crucial C4/M4/Micron C400 (whatever the successor to the C300 is going to be called), but I would guess that it is.
It seems to be a very high-performance chip.
yeah I just saw that, I thought I read something recently about them using Toshiba flash
the 3rd party controller is still strange, the controller is what makes the drive
Intel has made their own controllers this whole time with great results and now they switch to a 3rd party?
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,544
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,544
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4202/the-intel-ssd-510-review/2
Why is the 160Gb has 35K IOPS on random read, whereas the 120GB or 250Gb has only 20K IOPS on random read?
Shouldn't SATA 3 be faster than SATA 2?
What's typical 500GB SATA hard drive Random read / write speed?
Why is the 160Gb has 35K IOPS on random read, whereas the 120GB or 250Gb has only 20K IOPS on random read?
Shouldn't SATA 3 be faster than SATA 2?
What's typical 500GB SATA hard drive Random read / write speed?
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,403
They are not using their controller because iirc they couldn't get the writes as high. I believe they had to "give up" the IOPS throughout put for Seq Reads and Writes.
It boils down to 35k IOPS and reads at 250 writes at 100 or 20k IOPS and reads at 315 writes at 470
My numbers might be off a bit but you get the idea.
[LYL]Homer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 4,209
More performance is good (though Anand shows it's not tops) but I'm pretty much disappointed in the pricing. It seems that drive capacities for these 3rd gen drives have gone up to a more real-world usable size, but the cost/gb hasn't dropped in a significant way.
I was hoping for a price battle among Intel, Crucial, and Sandforce in the $150-250 range for 120-200gb drives. At that price point I would convert my 3 other PC's to SSD's and be able to move some at work to SSD's. With these 120 and 250gb models debuting at $315 and $615 respectively it just makes them seem like unaffordable upgrades and that my hopes were way out of sync. Gen2 drives still give a huge bump from rotational HDD's and are worth an upgrade to, and maybe there will be more good prices on them as closeouts.
I was hoping for a price battle among Intel, Crucial, and Sandforce in the $150-250 range for 120-200gb drives. At that price point I would convert my 3 other PC's to SSD's and be able to move some at work to SSD's. With these 120 and 250gb models debuting at $315 and $615 respectively it just makes them seem like unaffordable upgrades and that my hopes were way out of sync. Gen2 drives still give a huge bump from rotational HDD's and are worth an upgrade to, and maybe there will be more good prices on them as closeouts.
Ruiner
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2000
- Messages
- 3,093
So when are the .25 parts coming?
drescherjm
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 14,933
The price of these will not go significantly down unless NAND prices go down. Since Intel stuck with 34 nm with this release there would not be any savings over G2 (well except the SSD controller)
I tried to check the price history on dramexchange for 34nm MLC NAND but that required me to register..
Currently the session average for 8GB MLC is $11.56. Meaning it costs about $185 today for 128 GB of MLC NAND.
Last edited:
Random 4k performance is bad..
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4202/the-intel-ssd-510-review/4
All told I feel it is a fail. Sure sequential is up, but random is where Intel used to shine.
edit: and it NEEDS Trim more than the older drives:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4202/the-intel-ssd-510-review/13
"Worst case sequential performance isn't terrible, but worst case random write performance is pretty bad. Remember the ~50MB/s speeds from earlier? Those will drop down to ~5MB/s with an adequately fragmented drive."
I for one will pass on this drive.. Waiting on the reviews for the rest of this generation.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4202/the-intel-ssd-510-review/4
All told I feel it is a fail. Sure sequential is up, but random is where Intel used to shine.
edit: and it NEEDS Trim more than the older drives:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4202/the-intel-ssd-510-review/13
"Worst case sequential performance isn't terrible, but worst case random write performance is pretty bad. Remember the ~50MB/s speeds from earlier? Those will drop down to ~5MB/s with an adequately fragmented drive."
I for one will pass on this drive.. Waiting on the reviews for the rest of this generation.
Last edited:
Yeah I'm a bit dissapointed in it too, I was hoping/expecting an intel controller that would really take real world performance up a few notches, with best in class reliability and long term performance. Instead we get a warmed over c300 with an intel sticker on it, I'll pass.