Intel Cuts SSD Prices to Ward Off Competitors
Intel Cuts SSD Prices to Ward Off Competitors
Posted 02/06/2009 at 3:04pm
| by Andy Salisbury
6
Comments
Print
Intel has recently slashed the prices on their SLC (Single Level Cell) and MLC (Multi Level Cell) SSDs. This move comes in the wake of the failing economy, but also in the interest of helping to keep their competitors, such as OCZ, at bay.
OCZ claims that their series of SSDs have continued to see delays due to firmware reliability and performance. Reportedly many customers are anxious to buy them, but it is notable that OCZ is doing their best to avoid Seagate’s firmware issues.
Intel is planning for a 128GB SLC drive and a 320GB drive using new 34nm MLC chips in late 2009. For the time being though, their price cuts are mighty significant. Their 80GB model is down fro $585 to $390, 160GB down from $945 to $765 and their 32GB is down from $575 to $415.
Image Credit: Intel
More like this
Nextel2010
February 25, 2009 at 4:30pm
I'd wait before pouring a lot of cash into the Intel SSD's. For now they are still very expensive and I'm not convinced they have solved their extreme fragmentation issue. I have a 60 GB OCZ Core v2, and enjoy tweaking it to reduce the stuttering problem. I plan to align the partition, and install Steadystate, if still needed. The OCZ works great when it's working (and to be fair, it stutters/stalls only a very small amount), and I don't mind taking the time to experiment and learn more while tweaking it. It cost me only $165.00, about half what an Intel would cost.
josephb
February 10, 2009 at 12:08pm
I just bought an OCZ 64GB MLC drive. It is FAST! That is, it's fast once I got it set up right. Initial installation displayed stuttering - as many have reported. Installing MS SteadyState corrected that problem. But other problems slowed the drive - mostly Windows XP. Uninstalling Windows Live Search corrected most of the slowness I was experiencing.I haven't tried Win7 on it yet.
Previous boot times for XP were in the neighborhood of 4 minutes for my Q6600 based rig. Boot time with SSD is close to 60 seconds. SiSandra shows my SSD reads faster than a 300GB Vilociraptor. I'm impressed. Writing is still slow, but by dumping all my temp, My Document folders, and caches to a faster WD 320GB drive solved that issue very well. All in all I'm very happy with the OCZ MLC SSD drive.
I'll bet the Intel SSD smokes! But for the difference in price (about $300), it's hard for me to justify.
Gameaholic1337
February 07, 2009 at 1:00am
I don't think it's a typo. The SLC models have faster write speeds and longer MTBF and therefore cost a bit more.
When is the intel 64 gig SLC model coming out and how much will it cost? If it costs around $800 then why not raid 0 two of the 32 gig models? If someone was going to raid 0 said drives would it be best to use a-data's or patriot's dual ssd enclosure, a motherboard's raid controller, or an add on raid card?
I Jedi
February 06, 2009 at 4:33pm
I knew the price per gigabyte wasn't cheap for a SSD, but by that much per gigabyte. I said to myself quietly,"Wow." I'm just amazed at how much the cost is. Goes way, way beyond what I had thought.
gumbypoky
February 06, 2009 at 3:45pm
After price cuts the 32GB model is $415; the 80GB model is $390. Doesn't make much sense, or is the competition clustered at the 80GB size??
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
We introduce Intel's latest class of tablet killers and review 4 of the first Ultra...
Where have all the memorable videogame enemies gone?
This month's issue
Feature
11 Hardware Hacks
Feature
Overclock Your CPU
How-To
Supercharge Your Smartphone
Build It
A Powerful $830 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Multi-Monitor Usage On The Rise http://t.co/eWfJfCEG16 hours 9 min ago
- maximumpc: Windows 8 Consumer Preview Coming On February 29 http://t.co/3Nd04FdR21 hours 57 min ago
- maximumpc: Can RIM *ever* catch a break? Not today! App World numbers not as great as previously reported http://t.co/3ERRhr311 day 17 hours ago
