Hardware Intel X25-E 32GB SSD

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/12/17/intel-x25-e-32gb-ssd-review/1

SSDs might be able to deliver blistering read speeds, but they tend to fall down when it comes to write. Not so the Intel X25-E, which claims both blistering fast read and write speeds thanks to the use of SLC NAND flash memory. We find out if Intel's Extreme series SSD can make the grade and justify its monster price tag.

 

I'm surprised Intel even bothers to send out samples to "enthusiast" sites... I mean, what kind of value rating out of 10 were they expecting? Not exactly shining a good light on their products, sure it performs well but it's such a waste of money knowing you can buy a trio of 300GB Raptors for the same price.

 

On the subject of VelociRaptors, I'll get in before anyone asks "where the VelociRaptor is" - it'll be on its way to us as soon as we're back in the office after Christmas/New Year and we will have a review of it as soon as possible after that.

 

Have a good christmas Timmy

 

It may be the fastest drive you have seen but for the price only someone truly insane would buy one, especially for only 32GB of storage. Until SSDs come done more in price and can comfortably out perform standard mechanical drives I don't really want to know about them. No point wishing for something that won't happen in a long long time.

 

@ Bit-Tech
I think that these test also should be done whit a controller whit onboard cache, like the $150 Areca ARC-1200 whit 128MB.
A controller like this would companstat the X25-M bad wrigth preformace and properly also enhance the X25-E wright preformace
http://www.areca.com.tw/products/2ports.htm

My 2 cents

 

Thats a huge flaw you left for the final page, especially on a measly 32gb drive.

 

the rewrite issues only became apparent towards the end of testing - didn't really seem fair to include it previously.

 

As a concept product: awesome. Looking forward to the next generation.

 

Is it too late to ask for a nice graph illustrating this "issue"? I guess it does not matter that much I doubt anyone would actually buy the drive, but just because I'm the curious type....

 

I have been looking around at SSD drives, OCZ seem just too cheap so i expect performance to be poor!

Basical i am looking you get a tablet notebook which i've choosen already and to swap out the HDD for an SSD to increase the notebooks battery life a little.

Would the change in drives effect the battery performance by much or is this just myth?

 

Hmm I think Bit looked at this and found a small advantage, I remember Tomshardware making a right @ss of themselves when they claimed that SSDs used more power, which they later had to correct. This is also down to the individual drives I think....

(I could be wrong about all of this, could not be bothered to use the search function)

 

ok i dont respond here much but you have a $700 + sd card thats 32 gb, which is not that much space right, well what if you loaded say crysis off of your ram say you had 8-16 gb. how fast would that be or is it possible??? $700 plus is crazy for 32 gb. id think if you were prone to use 32 gb (SD) HD at $700 than you would think of 16 gb ram as possibility for a load for a program or game wouldnt this work too

 

I tried to get some reliable numbers but they were very unreliable due to the different state of the data in the cells when being rewritten. Sometimes it would be just a second or two slower (presumably most of the cells were set to off), while sometimes it would be more than twice the recorded time. In the end it averages out at about half the speed of the initial write when rewriting, but it's tricky to nail down anything more specific.

 

who buys this at these prices? jeez

 

That is pretty much correct. TomsHardware made the mistake of using a looping task on the drives. The SSD drives performed this faster and hence executed more cycles, hence using more power relative to HDDs. In real life terms the SSDs are more efficient. However 2.5" laptop HDDs are very power efficient to start with, using perhaps 0.5 Watts at idle and 2 Watts at the very brief moments of activity. So there is not that much on it.

 

The price is insane, an interesting comparison would be the 64GB OCZ E-Sata drive...just for fun!

 

never mind you fixed it faster than me

 

Not worth the money.

 

To you, i can see some enterprise uses for it, small but frequently accessed database that needs to be fast, at a company which can afford to throw money around.

And for us lowly consumers its interesting to see how tech like this evolves.