Jump to content


Photo

Intel X25-M Review


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,309 posts

Posted 02 April 2010 - 01:58 PM

Intelís X25-M SSD is the current industry standard holding the title as one of the best flash storage drives money can buy. Last year Intel made their best drive even better by decreasing the flash manufacturing process from 50nm to 34nm, substantially reducing the cost of the SSD and making the X25-M even more affordable for consumers. Read our full review to see how well the 160GB Intel X25-M performed in our tests.

Full Review

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#2 continuum

continuum

    Mod

  • Mod
  • 3,574 posts

Posted 08 April 2010 - 12:17 AM

Could you add a side-by-side comparison chart of power consumption with other tested SSDs?

#3 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,309 posts

Posted 08 April 2010 - 07:31 AM

We've thought about that but the chart gets huge...any other ideas on how to better present those comps? We could link to a chart outside the review with all the SSDs on it.

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#4 Lamb0

Lamb0

    Member

  • Member
  • 55 posts

Posted 08 April 2010 - 11:33 PM

Small wonder I've been recommending the Intel X25-MG2s to those few friends who've considered SSDs. Usually, it's too easy to be penny wise and pound foolish. Fortunately my friends chose to get the good stuff, or $ave until they can afford it! :D

#5 continuum

continuum

    Mod

  • Mod
  • 3,574 posts

Posted 09 April 2010 - 04:36 PM

Well, you could simplify the side-by-side chart with just idle and one type of peak power consumption number. With power draw of SSD's so low (relatively speaking) some additional information could be omitted for brevity's sake.

#6 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,309 posts

Posted 09 April 2010 - 07:28 PM

It is an iterative process, we'll see what we can do to continue to make the reviews better.

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#7 thedriver

thedriver

    Member

  • Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 12 April 2010 - 08:27 PM

Seeing as the 80GB drives are almost exactly half the price of the 160GB model, it would be interesting to see the 80GBs in RAID0 and see how they compare to the 160GB drive on it's own.

#8 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,309 posts

Posted 12 April 2010 - 09:08 PM

Great point. We're expecting Intel to deliver another 80GB for the RAID 0 and RAID 1 testing soon...though we don't yet have the 160GB. Take a look at the tests we posted today for the VelociRaptor RAID 0...I'd guess you'd see a similar boost out of the SSD, in terms of relative gain.

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#9 okashira

okashira

    Member

  • Member
  • 6 posts

Posted 14 April 2010 - 02:42 PM

Did you do this review with a laptop? Which one?

#10 Brian

Brian

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 5,309 posts

Posted 14 April 2010 - 02:47 PM

No, we have a standard testbed sot eh benchmarks are always the same...it's a desktop.

Is there a notebook specific question you have?

Brian

Publisher- StorageReview.com
Twitter - @StorageReview

 

#11 okashira

okashira

    Member

  • Member
  • 6 posts

Posted 14 April 2010 - 02:51 PM

No, we have a standard testbed sot eh benchmarks are always the same...it's a desktop.

Is there a notebook specific question you have?


Your 4K random read benchmark (CDM) struck me as low. Like the results people are getting from HM55 chipset laptops, like the Envy 15.

#12 TheRabbit

TheRabbit

    Member

  • Member
  • 2 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 09:47 AM

Hi,

I don't quite understand the power consumption specs listed by Intel. As written in your review, Intel states an active power consumption of 150mW and an idle draw of 75mW, which are 0.15W and 0.075W correct?

But then in your test, it shows a peak of 2.98W and idle of 0.6W, which are 2980mW and 600mW. Did Intel somehow miss a decimal point, or is my understanding of the metric system completely wrong?

Thanks.

#13 TSullivan

TSullivan

    SR Admin

  • Admin
  • 688 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 10:36 AM

Generally speaking, manufacturers power claims always come up short compared to what we see in the lab. We have no idea how Intel got those original low figures.

#14 TheRabbit

TheRabbit

    Member

  • Member
  • 2 posts

Posted 08 September 2010 - 01:56 PM

Generally speaking, manufacturers power claims always come up short compared to what we see in the lab. We have no idea how Intel got those original low figures.


Thanks for the fast response and clearing that up for me. I kept staring at the numbers and thought I was going insane or something, lol.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users