6_6_6

SSDs: WTH happenned in these 2 years? Still same capacity and prices

Recommended Posts

MrSpadge' date='02 June 2010 - 03:23 PM' timestamp='1275510206' post='262116']

Then you can not win your bet: if "SSDs replace all mechanical drives" you loose. If they don't he'll say "the development is not over yet" ;)

MrS

Haha I agree... Catch-22.

Bah everyone's always hollering about the "market" this and that... UNLESS you provide studies PROVING your claim, it's hearsay and innately MOOT. PROVE IT. Market my ass, who doesn't want a 500GB blazing fast SSD? It's THE largest technical improvement in computing hardware yet, but the "market" is keeping prices high? What a laugh, most of you don't know *hit about the "market." It's a FRAUD, they are keeping prices high b/c they CAN; duh, it's always worked like this. Most users (who WE rely on to buy in mass, so prices drop) have zero clue about just how much faster SSDs are vs mech-drives. Thus the "demand," won't be there at all. Why would Dell, HP etc... offer SSDs when the masses don't even know the benefits and thus don't want to pay a little more. Plus there are CONTRACTS signed by vendors of mech-HDs with HP, Dell, Lenovo, which haven't yet expired. Why risk a huge hit to your company's rep with these "still in developement" SSDs? They are sticking with mech-HDs bc they WORK and that's all that matters in the end. No fiddling around with TRIM, and firmware and diff chip sets blah blah = hardware uncertainty is NOT what successful businesses are about; they are going to use what works until SSDs can be proven as reliable as mech-HDs (omitting the high-end/power users who usually know what they are buying).

I'm certainly NOT going to be another $600 CD-R 1x burner retard buying this junk, until it's proven reliable, the price drops, and a solid warranty backing it up also. I believe another poster was talking about why the price has not yet dropped and more yahoo'ing about "the market,"... How about you take a read and compare the so-called "market" time line.

http://www.everyjoe....m-1980-to-2009/

HAHA the "market," go shove it or PROVE it...

Aka you're WRONG and cannot.

Edited by v12v12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha I agree... Catch-22.

Bah everyone's always hollering about the "market" this and that... UNLESS you provide studies PROVING your claim, it's hearsay and innately MOOT. PROVE IT. Market my ass, who doesn't want a 500GB blazing fast SSD? It's THE largest technical improvement in computing hardware yet, but the "market" is keeping prices high? What a laugh, most of you don't know *hit about the "market." It's a FRAUD, they are keeping prices high b/c they CAN; duh, it's always worked like this. Most users (who WE rely on to buy in mass, so prices drop) have zero clue about just how much faster SSDs are vs mech-drives. Thus the "demand," won't be there at all. Why would Dell, HP etc... offer SSDs when the masses don't even know the benefits and thus don't want to pay a little more. Plus there are CONTRACTS signed by vendors of mech-HDs with HP, Dell, Lenovo, which haven't yet expired. Why risk a huge hit to your company's rep with these "still in developement" SSDs? They are sticking with mech-HDs bc they WORK and that's all that matters in the end. No fiddling around with TRIM, and firmware and diff chip sets blah blah = hardware uncertainty is NOT what successful businesses are about; they are going to use what works until SSDs can be proven as reliable as mech-HDs (omitting the high-end/power users who usually know what they are buying).

I'm certainly NOT going to be another $600 CD-R 1x burner retard buying this junk, until it's proven reliable, the price drops, and a solid warranty backing it up also. I believe another poster was talking about why the price has not yet dropped and more yahoo'ing about "the market,"... How about you take a read and compare the so-called "market" time line.

http://www.everyjoe....m-1980-to-2009/

HAHA the "market," go shove it or PROVE it...

Aka you're WRONG and cannot.

Actually I think I prefer a HDD to a SSD for storage - even if I could afford SSDs for storage.

SSDs are NOT needed for storage.

Companies even still use tape.

It used to be a mental illness when people collected thins and never threw anything away - now since HDDs have grown so much, most people do just that and no-one complains...

Hello??

There are certain boundaries where SSDs are too small - 40GB for example - unless its just an OS with little else. But once you pass 100GB there are very few people who need this in a laptop - storage is another matter - and your "primary computer" generally isn't your storage computer.

Edited by DetlevCM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It used to be a mental illness when people collected thins and never threw anything away - now since HDDs have grown so much, most people do just that and no-one complains...

Hello??

Because the cost is small (HDDs are large) and the cost of deleting stuff is high - you have to think about what you need and what not. And if you delete something which you later on need again you curse yourself. What you store here is information, it's not as superfluous as the cloth from your youth.

It's good to point out that super large SSDs are not really needed for everyone to completely replace HDDs. And that it's not feasible to try to store everything on them. But it's not our place to judge what information people want to keep and what not. And whether they want to invest the time to thoroughly sort their stuff or not.

MrS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrSpadge' date='11 June 2010 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1276288547' post='262211']

Because the cost is small (HDDs are large) and the cost of deleting stuff is high - you have to think about what you need and what not. And if you delete something which you later on need again you curse yourself. What you store here is information, it's not as superfluous as the cloth from your youth.

It's good to point out that super large SSDs are not really needed for everyone to completely replace HDDs. And that it's not feasible to try to store everything on them. But it's not our place to judge what information people want to keep and what not. And whether they want to invest the time to thoroughly sort their stuff or not.

MrS

You are right that the cost of storage is cheap - and obviously, if it can be useful then its better to keep it, but people keep all sorts of junk.

While I school I started collecting news reports (downloadable) as podcasts...

I did watch them once when they were current - but then at some point thought "what's the point" and deleted all of them - I never missed them.

Sometimes you really need to think about what you need.

Emails - I used to keep nearly all emails except forum notifications which went in the "bin" the moment after I clicked on the link...

I did settle down on one occasion and went through the old emails and deleted a whole pile as they would never ever be useful - for example one line emails to my mother - obviously, I kept the ones that might be useful - and wit emails, every one is 9KB or so... but some people amass tons of stuff with no reason...

And even here emails are much more convenient than letters... nobody would keep a room full of letters - which is possibly the amount you would collect over your life... you keep the private and important ones.

On that note - I must admit to keeping too many photographs - but the reason for that is, that when I originally backed them up I didn't delete the 100% un-salvageable images in my backup, just when sorting out the bad ones and keeping the good ones for post processing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here is the jist of it. i can appreciate the need for speed. i use to use 15K SCSI drives for my primary machine. what has always been the fastest mechanical drives on the planet, bar none? 15k SCSI's... what has been there capacity? always less then that their SATA 7200 counterparts.

are you picking up what i'm putting down? why hasnt anyone else drawn that conclusion? SSD's will replace the SCSI market in time i'm sure of it. but never the mainstream mechanical market.

why do i say that with such certainty? its simple. in my house i maintain what could be classified by some as a "vast media library." i currently have about 3TB of media not to mention about 300GB of miscellaneous files i maintain. there is no single hard drive on the planet that can house all my data. the funny part is, i know people who need much much more then what i need.

so saying that computers technology "doubles" itself every two years where does leave us? first lets settle one thing. can we all agree that a 128GB SSD for around $240 is considered "main stream." i dare not go any higher. more then likely a 64GB for around $140 would be closer to "main stream." but for the sake of argument, lets call 128GB for $240 "main stream." and for a second lets agree microelectronic technology doubles itself every 2 years. and prices are reduced by 100% every two years. where does that leave us?

it leaves us with consumer "main stream" SSD's in the 256GB capacity for around $150 in two years. thats it folks. 256GB for around $159 in two years...

there will be no amazing huge break through in the foreseeable future that all the sudden puts 2TB SSD's in the hands of every day consumers. baring any unforeseen circumstance SSD's will progress like every other piece of computer technology to ever make it to market.

and all the while the need for ever increasing mass storage will press on. the need for hard drives in the 4TB rang is there folks. there is much more need for that then there is for any type of SSD.

are we coming to the end of the road for mechanical drives? maybe maybe not. some say yes. but i cant count on all my fingers and toes how many times i have heard that said about something in regards to computer technology. yet someone always found a way to get around it.

SSD's will be the leader in the performance segment. no doubt about that. but laws of computer evolution just simple wont let them replace mechanical drives in the mass storage market. it just cant happen. unless they truly do hit a wall with mechanical drives. but i think they will have something entirely new by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wholeheartedly agree. During the last years I also started to delete things more generously and frankly never missed a file. On the other hand I once lost a couple of months of 1+ year old emails. That was really painful, lost some logins and such. And I also tend to store quite a lot of photos. I just delete the ones which I'm sure are not worth anything.. which happens to be just 10 - 20% of them, so it does not really matter.

MrS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pico: I think we call all agree that it would be foolish to try to replace all storage by SSDs. And your estimation of mainstream development is actually far too good: you can get either double the capacity or a 50% price cut from a die shrink, but not both at the same time. That's the point I had tried to make a couple of pages ago. Sure, there are some other tricks like storing 2 bits in each cell.. but 3-bit cells struggle to provide the reliability needed for SSDs.

What I think we need and will see is a smarter use of the capacity. We need TB class storage, but we don't need it in every device. As you say you've got a couple of TBs of media at home. It just wouldn't be feasible to put several TBs of HDD space into each and every computer in your home to access this collection. If a media server is easy to setup (and I mean for Joe Sixpack) and "just works" and the LAN is fast enough, then we can easily get by with SSDs of varying capacity for the remaining PCs, notebooks etc. Maybe add some HDD to the powerhouse workstations / gaming rigs, but that's about it.

Of course one could also talk about swapping this mass storage out to "the cloud" (where it would sit on HDDs again). But I don't think we're there yet - neither in terms of bandwidth, nor in terms of hosting company trust.

MrS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is my thought exactly. and that is in fact what i do now. i have a server that houses all my media. 128GB is a all i need on any given computer in the house excluding my main computer. it needs about 160GB give or take a bit. i am waiting to replace all my mechanical drives with 128GB SSD's. but i'm waiting for 128GB SSD's to be in the $150 range...

.

.

.

i'll be waiting a long time.

..

...

but i think the main stream consumer falls into one of two categories. either they need next to nothing in storage. those people are your students and business class who just need to maintain a modest music library, presentations, emails, research papers, etc. this is what i would call the 128GB segment. the other category uses their computers as work/play stations. doing things such as editing video, home movies, volumes of music, computer games and what have you. this is what i would call the 1TB segment.

the 128GB segment isn't interested in SSD's because, after all, how fast does a power point need to load? if its not near-instant then your presentation is too long :P.

the 1TB segment isn't interested in SSD's because they just arnt practical for them.

that leaves SSD's for the performance, enthusiast segment (or enterprise). which throws me back to the day's when i had 15K SCSI in my home PC.

personally i want to put 3 SSD's in raid 0. its the cheapest way i can get the capacity i need for my gaming machine.

but why would i do such a thing? short answer is, i'm a "nerd who doesnt know how to spend his money." i want my games to load faster.

.

.

.

.

really, you want your games to load faster? really?

but how many people are going to say that? who is the guy that says, "yes, i want to spend $340 so my games load faster."

that is a sorry looser right there folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PowerPoint...

You forget booting times ;) being able to boot in about 1min is quite useful (or a few seconds for some because they chucked out half the OS) allows you to shut down your laptop rather than use standby -> result: you get more battery life.

And the video, photo editing segment - its very useful, you edit what you need tight now on a SSD, then move it to a large slow drive for storage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who is the guy that says, "yes, i want to spend $340 so my games load faster."

That's the wrong thing to ask. Obviously not many will stand up, otherwise we'd all be running SSDs by now.

Currently you can get a decent HDD for 50€ here, but people don't have much of a problem to pay 100€ for a disk if they get proportionally more out of it. Sure, someone's buying those raptors, but most people just don't like spending much on such a *caugh* minor component. So if you were to ask "Who wants SSD performance and reasonably large storage for 100€?" you'd get quite few risen arms, and rightfully so.

At my work we've got a lot of systems which are a few years old and typically have 2 - 3 GHz dual cores, 1 - 2 GB memory and run XP. These boxes do feel quite slow due to 2 reasons: the HDDs were slow when the systems were bought, and the win installation became somewhat messed up over time. You could argue that the 2nd problem could be avoided, but I'd say this is the real world situation that storage systems are facing out there. There's not much point in trying to educate all of your employees on how to keep a windows lean and sleek and how to detect and get rid of unwanted stuff. Putting an SSD into such systems may seem like the dumb solution at first glance, after all it's just "throwing money at the problem without attacking its root". But I'd argue that it would work and is certainly cheaper than trying to educate people or trying to manage the software centrally (we're not big enough for that and peoples needs are too individual).

What would they gain from that? Obviously faster boot, but there's also launching any Adobe product, Corel, Java, Origin, LabView, AutoCAD, Matlab.. they all take their sweet time, and it adds up over the day. Oh, and not to forget Office. However, the HDDs which normally go into such PCs retail for ~30€. Using a 100€ unit instead is asking for a lot, and 200+€ is totally out of the question. Currently 100€ could buy a 32 GB SSD, which would be too small too often.

I say let's offer this market a Momentus XT style HDD. Use a 1 platter 7.2k rpm 3.5" drive as the base unit (the things which retail for 30€). Use the large DRAM buffer of 64 MB as in the XT for both, the HDD and SSD part. And give the SSD 2 channels (8 GB cache) or later on 4 channels. Using the current SLC modules 4 channels would lead to a 16 GB cache, which is as expensive as 32 GB of MLC flash. Since that currently fits into the 100€ range I see no reason why a hybrid using this capacity wouldn't fit this price point (mid-term). And 16 or even 8 GB would probably cache most, if not all the files people are actively working with over.. an entire week?

Later on a smarter design like e.g. the Inidilix value controller (Amigos?) with 4 channels could be used out of the box with 32 GB MLC, or 16 GB if they convince someone to make smaller modules. That would provide the added benefit of write caching. And since you've got much more space to work with in a single platter 3.5" drive than in the Momentus XT I don't see any mechanical problems with this approach.

And the "TB crowd": I still think they could use a similar design. Just add a few platters, go for a high performance SSD part and extend the price range to 200€. The buffer size wouldn't need to get much bigger (you don't need the entire 20 GB of that game at any one single time), but write caching probably has to be included (to make it feel "really fast" instead of "very fast"). Of course I'd also still like to get the OS on board for more intelligent caching, but that involves serious work from several parties.

MrS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was was just searching the internet going back over release history of 1.5TB and 2TB drvies, trying to find a pattern when we may be seeing 2.5TB's or 3.2TB's. i came across some very, very interesting things. i found the same statement by several hard drive manufacturing companies:

"It will take three to four years for SSDs to come to parity with hard drives."

written in 2008.

.

..

wow...

where they ever wrong.

and what i find especially amazing is the forum chatter at that time.. people saying things like, "it will be a lot sooner then that."

well, we are one year away from that predicted suspense and that time frame is NO WHERE near close to being met.

in two years we will have 3.2TB drives, and 512GB SSD's will be "affordable." and by affordable i mean $.25 per GB.

furthermore, what i thought was increasingly remarkable was seagates statement, "[we] won’t focus on consumer SSDs until the price falls to the 10-cents-per-GB level." (press statement made during their 2008 release of the 1.5TB 7200.11)

wow.

im looking for the day they are consistently 2-DOLLAR-per-GB level. rofl.

$.10? dare i dream?

so here is my prediction. write this down. pin this post. let me dance a jig on this statement in 2 years. nostradamus jr is bring it to you now.

3.2TB platter drives are ~$125

512GB SSD's are ~$125

then we can finally say, "hmmm.. do i want capacity or performance?"

brian! if your listening you need to make a "Board of Predictions" sticky or something... we need a "board historian" or something with its own thread. something like:

June 2010. Pico predicts 3.2TB hard drives will be main stream by 2012 and 512GB SSD's want be "affordable" until late 2012.

June 2010. 1TB Hard Drives fall to $60 on sale. 2TB Hard drives fall to $100 on sale.

May 2010. Seagate Momentus XT is released. First mainstream consumer hybrid. 500GB for $130

May 2010. 64GB SSD's can be had on sale for less then $130. median price $170.

April 2010. 600GB VolociRaptor hits retail in limited quantities for $270

we can call it Storage History at a Glance.

OKGO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrSpadge' date='13 June 2010 - 03:56 AM' timestamp='1276426574' post='262238']

I say let's offer this market a Momentus XT style HDD. Use a 1 platter 7.2k rpm 3.5" drive as the base unit (the things which retail for 30€). Use the large DRAM buffer of 64 MB as in the XT for both, the HDD and SSD part. And give the SSD 2 channels (8 GB cache) or later on 4 channels. Using the current SLC modules 4 channels would lead to a 16 GB cache, which is as expensive as 32 GB of MLC flash. Since that currently fits into the 100€ range I see no reason why a hybrid using this capacity wouldn't fit this price point (mid-term). And 16 or even 8 GB would probably cache most, if not all the files people are actively working with over.. an entire week?...

that is absolutely beautiful. i think you have an extremely adept grasp of actual market needs to say the very least. my work computer is a dual core 2.66GHz core 2 duo with 2GB of ram, and a WD800JD-75MSA3 running windows xp. it is by far, hands down, the slowest most horrendous POS i have ever had the misfortune of having to work on. but it shouldnt be... at the very least it should be reasonably snappy. oh, hell no! to get from the windows log-in screen to a working desktop literally takes longer then my main PC at home to boot to a usable desk top from bios post. well over 30 seconds. and that is from the log in screen!

i literally lean back in my chair, fold my hands on top of my head and watch people walk by my office while i wait for outlook to load. OUTLOOK! i would shoot myself if i actual did any kind of productivity on it. i can HEAR the hard drive just grinding its ass off... my boss has walked in and asked me, "what are you doing." i say, "waiting for the computer to load." not even surprised he just shrugs and walks away. it is renowned how slow our computers are. but they shouldnt be. they have healthy specs. these are not ancient computers.

no way in hell is the company going to purchase computers with SSD's in them. no way would they upgrade to SSD's. but a hybrid? one that was bundled as part of a corporate Dell mass purchases? for the same price but just smaller capacity? oh, that they would do all day everyday...

but no one is marketing that. "here is your $150 64GB SSD. would you like to increase the cost of your workstation's by about 30% but not have enough storage to hold your local data? no? how about we over double the cost of your workstation for a 128GB SSD then? no to that too? ok, here are your POS platter drives. enjoy."

hybrids are the future. lets bring them on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is absolutely beautiful. i think you have an extremely adept grasp of actual market needs to say the very least. my work computer is a dual core 2.66GHz core 2 duo with 2GB of ram, and a WD800JD-75MSA3 running windows xp. it is by far, hands down, the slowest most horrendous POS i have ever had the misfortune of having to work on. but it shouldnt be... at the very least it should be reasonably snappy. oh, hell no! to get from the windows log-in screen to a working desktop literally takes longer then my main PC at home to boot to a usable desk top from bios post. well over 30 seconds. and that is from the log in screen!

i literally lean back in my chair, fold my hands on top of my head and watch people walk by my office while i wait for outlook to load. OUTLOOK! i would shoot myself if i actual did any kind of productivity on it. i can HEAR the hard drive just grinding its ass off... my boss has walked in and asked me, "what are you doing." i say, "waiting for the computer to load." not even surprised he just shrugs and walks away. it is renowned how slow our computers are. but they shouldnt be. they have healthy specs. these are not ancient computers.

no way in hell is the company going to purchase computers with SSD's in them. no way would they upgrade to SSD's. but a hybrid? one that was bundled as part of a corporate Dell mass purchases? for the same price but just smaller capacity? oh, that they would do all day everyday...

but no one is marketing that. "here is your $150 64GB SSD. would you like to increase the cost of your workstation's by about 30% but not have enough storage to hold your local data? no? how about we over double the cost of your workstation for a 128GB SSD then? no to that too? ok, here are your POS platter drives. enjoy."

hybrids are the future. lets bring them on!

If that computer has a network connection then that might slow you down a lot during log in...

At least that was my UK experience from university and school - network = trouble...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the flowers :)

i can HEAR the hard drive just grinding its ass off...

Haha! Reminds me of a situation where a collegue walked into our office and kindly asked my other collegue to let that poor little bird out of his computer..

MrS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it helps any, the Crucial RealSSD C300 256GB is the fastest drive on the market now, and at $610ish, it's also one of the cheapest per GB.

($610 is still a bucket of money upfront...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drives I'd be willing to buy for daily use as a boot drive as shown by pricegrabber shipped to my house divided by advertised capacity.

Corsair Nova 32GB - ~$3.1/GB

Intel X25-V 40GB - ~$3/GB

Corsair Nova 64GB - ~$2.7/GB

Crucial M225 64GB - ~$2.8/GB

Intel X25-M 80GB - ~$2.8/GB

Crucial M225 128GB - ~$2.25/GB

Corsair Nova 128GB - ~$2.6/GB

Crucial C300 128GB - ~$2.75/GB

Intel X25-M 160GB - ~$2.7/GB

Crucial C300 256GB - ~$2.55/GB

The $650 C300 256GB drive is cheap per GB compared to many drives. The champ right now is the $290 M225 128GB at $2.25/GB

Edited by dhanson865

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrSpadge' date='16 June 2010 - 04:59 PM' timestamp='1276721999' post='262271']

The M225 is "just" a barefoot drive, isn't it? So how do the others (Vertex 1 etc.) stack up against that apparently exceptional M225 price?

MrS

Yes the M225 is a barefoot drive. The Vertex 120GB is about $2.60/GB. This is because the absolute price is higher and because the advertised capacity is lower. You could argue that the price per gig should be adjusted one way or another to account for differences in "overprovisioning" but I'm happy to just compare based on advertised capacity.

Oh and I wouldn't call that price or drive exceptional, just good enough to consider. There will be much movement in SSD prices this Fall maybe the M225 is just leading the changes to come by a few weeks.

Edited by dhanson865

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crucial just started selling the C300 in a 64GB version at $150. This is a significant price drop considering its the only 6GB/s sata SSD on the market right now.

Note it's just as fast as the 128GB and 256GB versions on reads but is noticeably slower on writes (just as all the lower capacity drives are).

64GB Crucial RealSSD C300 2.5-inch SATA 6GB/s

CTFDDAC064MAG-1G1

http://www.crucial.com/pdf/Datasheets-letter_C300_RealSSD_v2-5-10_online.pdf

http://www.crucial.com/store/partspecs.aspx?IMODULE=CTFDDAC064MAG-1G1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a point of clarification, the SF-1200 drives do not lose speeds as the capacity falls (at least on the spec sheet). So not all SSDs lose speed as you get smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a point of clarification, the SF-1200 drives do not lose speeds as the capacity falls (at least on the spec sheet). So not all SSDs lose speed as you get smaller.

Yes, assuming you don't use encryption and/or your non encrypted data is compressible the specs might hold up. But there is probably some element of the "spec" not being as specific or accurate. Kind of like comparing TDP to ACP in CPUs. Sandforce 1200 or 1500 or anything they ever come up with will likely continue to break the rule of thumb for that and many other concepts when compared versus traditional SSDs but as much as they break the rule they also blur the rule.

I'm still not ready to leap on the Sandforce bandwagon. Both they and Marvell have a little more proving to do before I trust either as much as I do an Intel SSD. The price advantage that the C300 presents might get me to buy one or more for testing if someone else doesn't respond by dropping prices in kind.

while I'm here I'll update the price per GB numbers I posted a while back

Corsair Nova 32GB ~$ 95 ~$3.00/GB

Intel X25-V 40GB ~$110 ~$2.75/GB

Crucial C300 64GB ~$150 ~$2.35/GB

Corsair Nova 64GB ~$173 ~$2.70/GB

Crucial M225 64GB ~$190 ~$2.95/GB

Intel X25-M 80GB ~$215 ~$2.70/GB

Corsair Nova 128GB ~$330 ~$2.58/GB

Crucial C300 128GB ~$338 ~$2.64/GB

Crucial M225 128GB ~$369 ~$2.88/GB

Intel X25-M 160GB ~$430 ~$2.69/GB

Crucial C300 256GB ~$640 ~$2.50/GB

even if I trusted sandforce drives they still command a price premium I'm not willing to pay.

also while I'm at it the drives to put on the list price wise for less expensive sandforce drives are:

OCZ Agility 2

OCZ Vertex 2

Corsair Force

am I missing anything worth tracking other than the capacity variations?

Edited by dhanson865

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now