Intel lowers price off its solid-state drives
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
My first SSD was a OCZ Vertex (120GB). I put that SSD in my desktop (as a OS drive) and it was fast. I later figured it would be even better in my laptop because I'd get durability benefits, increased battery life and the performance benefits.
Unfortunately, while you do notice a bit when you go from a slower drive to a faster drive, you really notice when you go from a faster drive to a slower drive, and my desktop, back to running on spinning rust, was a slug.
Sigh.
So, I then picked up a Intel X25-M (160GB) for my desktop and all was well again. Here is how I justified it to myself: when you take your total system cost as a whole into consideration, adding a ~$200-$500 SSD is a lot of money, but if it makes your total system cost only 30% more expensive but at the same time makes your computer feel twice as fast, that isn't such a bad trade-off. Think in terms of dollars per gigabyte and you'll never buy a SSD. Instead, thinking of dollars per unit performance, and SSDs look like a much better value.
http://techreport.com/r.x/ssd-value-0610/value-price-overall-plot.gif
Oh, and:
Unfortunately, while you do notice a bit when you go from a slower drive to a faster drive, you really notice when you go from a faster drive to a slower drive, and my desktop, back to running on spinning rust, was a slug.
Sigh.
So, I then picked up a Intel X25-M (160GB) for my desktop and all was well again. Here is how I justified it to myself: when you take your total system cost as a whole into consideration, adding a ~$200-$500 SSD is a lot of money, but if it makes your total system cost only 30% more expensive but at the same time makes your computer feel twice as fast, that isn't such a bad trade-off. Think in terms of dollars per gigabyte and you'll never buy a SSD. Instead, thinking of dollars per unit performance, and SSDs look like a much better value.
http://techreport.com/r.x/ssd-value-0610/value-price-overall-plot.gif
Oh, and:
... should be 160GB, not 1600GB. Unfortunately.
Considering that Intel SSD drives are no longer considered to be the best and fastest available, they need to cut prices. Except for the 120GB model, it looks like Intel SSD drives are still not competitive. I see 60GB drives for ~$100 and 120GB drives for ~$200 all the time. That includes Sandforce (currently the best SSD controller chip) based drives. I recently picked up a 60GB drive for use as a boot/system drive. It creates a nice speed enhancement for the OS. Data needs to be stored on another drive but they are dirt cheap so it's no issue.
Putting a 160GB Intel SSD into my 2008 MacBook Pro saved me from "having" to get a new MacBook Pro this year. So, that $450 expenditure saved me $1500+ (at least for the time being). 
Added bonus: battery life gets a nice boost in addition to the speed bump. Went from a little over 2 hours to over 3 hours with the SSD in place of the 500GB WD drive.
Added bonus: battery life gets a nice boost in addition to the speed bump. Went from a little over 2 hours to over 3 hours with the SSD in place of the 500GB WD drive.
120GB is a nice size. Looking forward to the intel G3 ssd's that should be out early next year as current drives tech is outdated but still a decent performer. My 80GB was too small for a main laptop hd so i use it the dvd bay insead to load apps/games.
Even so, the price of the 160GB drive seems disproportionate when compared to the $249 price of the new Intel 120GB drive. Prices for SSDs over 120GB seems to command a premium.This is one product where it really pays to shop around due to rapid innovation and frequent price cuts.
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!