Holy cow! 250GB SSD would cost you 699 bucks!

Take a look at what they ask for the biggest 2.5" SATA SSD available in the market, $699.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2013240636 1421444038&name=250GB
That's about $2.80/GB

Compare that to $0.27/GB with the highest performance 2.5" SATA Mechanical Hard Drive, the Seagate Momentus 7200.4 500GB, http://alrightdeals.com/Item.htm?Id=S2_System.Components_100...499GB___SEA9500420AS

The SSD drive is more than 10 times more expensive.

I want a big capacity, high performance drive but I think I would wait until the price of SSD drops into mechanical hard drive level and until the technology becomes more mature.

 

>.> apparently you are new to ssd prices.

 

This is not that surprising, considering 32GB SSDs were sold for around $1500 only a year ago.

 

That's the cheapest you're gonna get right now for SSD... some are $20/GB...

 

actually 250gb for that much is impressive!! once it get to $400 im buying one

 

What do you get for $20/GB compare to cheaper SSD drive?

 

If you could get a good 250GB SSD for $699 it would be very cheap.

Unfortunately the OCZ Core is very likely to cause stuttering unless you're willing to run all kinds of special software and tweaks.

 

Wow, that's a good price.

 

64Gb SSD was like $700 some months ago. Now we're talking 250Gb !!!
Sooner or later, as more manufacturers produce SSD, owning one wouldn't be a big problem.

 

Yep, 2 more years for main stream is my guess.

 

One year from today is my bet

 

1 more year is plausible.
And we shall see more versions of mechanical drives. At least a 1TB mobile version before its era ends.

 

US$699 compared to the price in Europe. (£1 ~ US$1.5 so that's ~$1,000).

SSD prices are working their way down / capacities increasing and SSD is giving the HDD manufacturers incentive to improve performance and reduce power consumption.

John

 

wow the ocz link doesn't point to a core, it points to another model! anybody have any ideas?

 

Yeah it's their budget 'Solid' series.

'Vertex' Series is what you want

 

Europe has VAT added into the pricing, so about 20% of that price is in VAT. That drops it down to $800 without VAT. The US$ price is $760 from your linked web site.

So it's about the same actual price without taxes.

 

Last year is calling. It wants its news back...

 

, $700? Isn't solid state drives made out of flash memory?

 

Nope, different technology.

 

Are the solid series just as bad as the core, I haven't seen anything on them yet?

 

Yes they still use the old JMicron controller, although you can completely eradicate any stutter by using SteadyState.

 

waiting for the China to kill the prices for everyone. haha

 

What's the difference between the Solid and Core series besides price obviously. I figured the Samsung 256GB SSD coming out would be around $800. Probably not too far off.

 

Man, I hope all this stuff shakes out quickly as I REALLY would like a decently priced SLC 128GB SSD, and I mean really really! I will not go MLC and I do not care who makes it.

 

their vortex series should be like Intels MLC drive, thought the 120 and the 250 GB versions have 64MB cache memory on board.

the other two versions are worthless - the solid and the core series

on the other hand, their performance SLC drive is a pure samsung SSD

 

The Solid Series 250 GB came in today and I'm using it as a storage drive in my Thinkpad T400. Here are the HDtune Pro read and write results.

 

How come the write speed of your SSD vary so wildly? Min 8.3, Max 96.7, Av 45.3 ??

 

The lower ones are probably random writes where SSDs don't do that well.

jedisolo, how well do you like that drive so far? Is it worth the money?

 

As a storage drive it's pretty good. According to Hdtune the drive does have write cache. I'm sure in a few weeks it'll come down in price but if you have room for 2 drives in your laptop pick this one up as a storage drive.

 

Well for the price/GB on this thing storage isn't what I would be using it for, it would be performance. Is that there yet?

 

I would say it's a little bit faster than my Super Talent 128 gb and I haven't had any problems with that drive.

 

OCZ is labeling their Solid series for "value-conscious" consumer, whatever that means. The specs look pretty good, but specs and actual performance don't always synch.

At this point, if I were to spend that much money on an SSD, it would be one of the intel ssd's to use as an OS and boot partition, not an mlc ssd with the current iteration of the jmicron controller.

 

I think you need to read the SSD thread. If you use SteadyState with the Core or Solid series it puts them up there with the Intel X25, and in some cases betters it. I picked up a 128GB Core for less than 200 bucks. An absolute bargain if you ask me and certainly they are worth a lot more than nothing.

 

Have you tried using Steadystate on your system?

 

I have, thank you. Now if you have red it you could see my posts in there too.

good luck with the current MLC drives with no onboard cache .. cause you'll need it.

 

Lol. If I have 'red' it? If your reading skills are as good as your writing skills I think it's you that needs to read the thread. If you had you would realise that it has nothing to do with luck. SteadyState or EasyCo MFT both completely eradicate any stutter and put performance on par with other much more expensive SSDs.

I think those results speak for themselves.

 

No I haven't used steady state on my system because I haven't experienced any stuttering.

 

SteadyState is the disk protecting thing from microsoft right?

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/sharedaccess/default.mspx

I as because I am considering getting an SSD.

 

Yes that's right and it has a fortunate side effect of storing all writes in a sequential temporary cache, which are then committed to the disk at the next reboot.

More info here: http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47183

 

"However, a known issue with the current version (2.5) of SteadyState is that inability to perform a controlled shutdown/restart from within Windows (e.g. due to power failure or complete system freeze) may result in a complete loss of the cached data from the current session!"

yeah, go ahead and reinstall your system on a drive that uses SteadyState and use it's side effect of makin sequential writes onto the SSD, knowing that it can crap out at any time. And I mean not only by power outage, thought most laptops don't have that problem.

not to add up the extra CPU work

Patching the problem doesn't eliminate the problem.

so, as I said before, good luck.

 

Yeah there are some limitations. If you don't want to live with them there are other options like EasyCo MFT which increases speeds even more. I don't keep any critical data on my system drive as I have another 500GB HD at my disposal. Have you ever heard of backups? Maybe a good idea to start regardless if you are running SteadyState. Extra CPU work? There is no evidence that this is even worth mentioning as it is so small.

It is my view that to have a 128GB SSD today for under 200 bucks but to have to live with these compromises is well worth it.

 

it is my view that it's not.. you don't want to get something high performing and then do compromises everywhere..

i haven't got MFT to work successfully yet. dunno. i tried it on the asus eee, which has similar behaviour to ocz core. no difference. the only differnence was, it worked better for some seconds, and then completely blocked the os while flushing the cache.. so only a shift of the problem, but no gain.

as you have a raid in your system anyways, i'd prefer to get a good ssd, but smaller (64gb or 32gb depending on how much you wanna pay) and let one of the 500gb disks in for storage (and later, you can get a cheap ocz for storage if you want ssd only..).

 

The beauty of choice

 

the beauty of messing up your head with all the combinations that are possible and not being able to choose

still, i suggest you to wait at the moment, as the current ocz are really not worth it, no matter how cheap. currently, even the intels have problems (on systems that don't allow them to run at full speed at least).

the mtrons work great, the samsungs work great. and in some days/weeks, we know wether the new ocz vertex ones work great.

but i really really really suggest you to not get something where you have to compromise. you do an upgrade, you want it to be worth it. pay a little more, get something that works out of the box and has no problems. you'll feel MUCH better.

oh, and afterwards, you can still tweak

espencially if you consider MFT (and you're not sure it works), be sure you have to pay for it. spend that money on a better ssd instead.

 

I'd prefer to tweak and compromise, save myself $500 and have the speed and space benefits now.

That is what will make me feel MUCH better

 

i don't want to see one post how it sucks because it doesn't work, then!!!

the problem is, you can't tweak it to work good. you can tweak it to get it acceptable, and fine in some cases. but not for general all-sort-of-usage.

and as you HAVE huge space, why do you care about the system-disk size? answer: you shouldn't.

 

Ｉmight be getting an Intel X-25 SSD which is also in the $699 regions. but is only 80GB.

Capacity doesn't matter when you have two hard drives and a 320GB as a secondary. The sheer speed of the Intel SSD makes up for the price any day.

 

Ha, no I've made my bed now haven't I

Why do you say you can't tweak it to work good - SteadyState looks good to me?

Why do I care about system-disk size? Well to put it simply I'm a gamer and I'll be able to install nearly all the games I'm playing at the moment on the SSD. Game files also have the added bonus of not requiring a backup. Win win.

 

i've used steadystate since more than a year for what it's ment for, and while it fixes the problem, it doesn't solve it. steadystate is great for what it's ment to be. but fixing buggy ssd's is not what it's ment for. and you'll notice that sooner or later.

i wouldn't use it on any non-kiosk system any day.

and espencially if you think about installing a big game, this would mean, it would have to write that big game into the cache. which, while fast, would not be faster than installing on an ordinary harddrive. and _then_, you would have to reboot and write the cache to the normal files, which would.. AGAIN take that long (if not longer due to random writes). so in essence, it would take twice the time than installing on an ordinary disk.

_and_ you need a cache file big enough to store all the data you write inbetween two reboots. that means, for nowaday games (gta4 16gb installation?) it should be a cache file of 20-30gb, just to be on the save side.

that would mean you'd loose a lot of storage to steadystate, and every big write operation would take twice the time, including a reboot (which i close to never do at all anymore).

is that the perfect solution to you? it isn't for me.

 

How many times do you need to install each game? Once generally. The average game is between 4GB and 8GB. Initially you can set your SS cache to a larger size, install all of your programs and games, reboot and then reduce the size of the cache to a more reasonable size. Or alternatively just install all of your large games and programs before you install SteadyState. You would then have the option of installing and running HyperFast before SteadyState for even greater performance.

How long does it take to reboot your machine? A minute or so? SteadyState does not dramatically increase boot times even with a large amount of data to commit. Hardly a chore.

Not rocket science and seems pretty good to me, especially considering the $ savings. Maybe we just need to agree to disagree.