News OCZ to launch 6Gb/s SSD

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/11/11/ocz-to-launch-6gbps-ssd/1

OCZ has announced a partnership with SSD specialist SandForce to launch a new range of consumer- and enterprise-grade SSDs - including models with 6Gb/s interfaces.

 

I'm sure at those performance levels, even in a year's time, they'll cost around £10/GB. It's not the performance that's holding back SSD adoption, it's the price

 

You can say that again.

 

I concur!

 

+1

 

An interesting article about SandForce

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/11/sandforce_c_round/

 

My wallet just retreated into my pants a little bit more.

 

Very true

 

aha. i sense truth!

 

new tech, new price, thats how it always is... look at LED backlit LCDs, those cost less to manufacture then the older cathode backlit LCD but they sell for a higher price. Its always like that, the early adopters spend the green which takes care of research and development cost and then once thats done you start to see pricing drop closer to its production cost. For the time being we will just have to be a bit more patient. Im sure by mid/end next year SSD will be more of a norm then they are now.

 

i can't speak for anyone else but what really puts me off is the size of the ssd's becasuse what good is an ssd if you can only add so much (dont bother saying its just for your os and games)
becasue i like a lot of people convert videos on my pc and then transfer them over to another device and make backups of my pc's hdd i can't keep multiple backups of thee c drive with a ssd this small becauce i have a couple games on it and i only have 4 sata ports on pc motherboard (without pci card to add more) so you can only get at most 2tb why is it so small when we have 1.5/2tb hdd and we have 64gb usb memory sticks and they are small you can even get 32gb sd cards?
am i wrong or if you can get 32gb on an sd card why can't you fit at least a tb on an ssd it shouldnt be that hard?

 

Shanky just use a big storage drive such as the fast Samsung F3 for your video converting.

Huge SSDs would be great but all you need, as you say, is the OS on it to make Windows and the apps used really nice and responsive and load pretty much instantly. You don't need to put games on it really either as it doesn't improve FPS, it just saves a few seconds loading times.

I got the Crucial 128GB SSD for £219 and I'm glad I did. I install most of my games to an F3 and they all load quick enough anyway to not need to fill my SSD.

 

yes but i convert a large amount of videos on a neraly daily bassis
but instead of this im waiting for sata 3 which should be better and i have a terrabite hdd and a 200gb for a backup of c drive
(partioned in to 3)
1. 200 gb (c drive)
2. about 700+ (d drive)
3. arround 200gb (f drive)

 

thats a fair point mr bens casue you can just move them from your c drive to another i forgot about that
becasue they dont affect registry

sorry for double post missed some stuff out

 

IMHO, 70gb is the smallest capacity I'd go for, for my OS disk.

 

yes but at min im using 90gb and all i got is about 4-5 games and all my programs

 

My Windows 7, Program files, ProgramData, Users (which includes all documents and settings folders) only come to 24GB total. Which still leaves me 100GB to play around with for installing games. But as I already said, games load fast enough off a Samsung F3 anyway to not need to fill my SSD.