Friday, March 23rd 2012
Intel's Future SSD Plans Detailed
After asking around Taiwan, Digitimes has apparently found out Intel's SSD intentions for the rest of this year. As soon as May the Santa Clara-based chip giant is said to bring out the 300 Series ' Maple Crest' drives, as well as the 720 Series (Ramsdale). The 300s are consumer-grade solutions, while the 720s target enterprises and feature a PCIe interface.
The 720 Series SSDs will come in 400 GB and 800 GB capacities and, like the 300 Series, will utilize 25 nm MLC (multi-level cell) NAND Flash memory.
In Q3 Intel is set to be making the transition to 20 nm NAND and will release the 500 Series 'King Crest' models, while later on, in Q4 we should see the arrival of the 100 GB, 200 GB, 400 GB and 800 GB Taylorsville drives part of the 700 Series, and the Jay Crest and Oak Crest SSDs bearing the 300 Series banner.
Source:
Digitimes
The 720 Series SSDs will come in 400 GB and 800 GB capacities and, like the 300 Series, will utilize 25 nm MLC (multi-level cell) NAND Flash memory.
In Q3 Intel is set to be making the transition to 20 nm NAND and will release the 500 Series 'King Crest' models, while later on, in Q4 we should see the arrival of the 100 GB, 200 GB, 400 GB and 800 GB Taylorsville drives part of the 700 Series, and the Jay Crest and Oak Crest SSDs bearing the 300 Series banner.
27 Comments on Intel's Future SSD Plans Detailed
My Intel X-25M has been just amazing but by Q4 could use a refresh, the 720 series PCIe 200GB and the new 500 series both sound like perfect replacements.
Ok, I am just a dumb Yank, what do the gold stars mean?
Oh wait... you were serious?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA~
Secondly, whether we're talking about SSDs, HDDs, PSUs or any other acronym, reliability has never been overpriced. RAID 1 being "twice" as expensive as a single drive isn't an unjustified expense, and if we here on this forum were capable of engineering an extremely reliable storage solution that also performed lightning fast but not lightningstorm fast compared to our competitors far less reliable efforts, we wouldn't be on this forum whingeing as we would be millionaires many times over. We don't even have to be talking about computer hardware in order to invoke "you get what you pay for" metaphors. If I were Intel, I'd price it that way too, as would many many others.
So yes, while "Slow" and "Overpriced" are subjective... for the kind of reliability provided, whoever claims such needs their subjective scale rebalanced, allowing of course for financial realities. Especially in an era of all too common BSODs and data partition resets creeping their way past validation phases.
And I did substantiate my position with a respectful and factual counter-argument. If you must judge me by one post, so be it, but I wouldn't reciprocate were our positions reversed. Just don't call SSDs slow or Intel SSDs unreliable (:roll:) and we'll get along swimmingly. :toast:
But I think what SHE was saying was Intel did put out a few SSD series that were slower at the time of release than other offerings in the market!
The 310series and the 510series were nothing to get excited about. Later this year though things might get very interesting!;)
The Intel 700 series sounds like it will be using PCIe interface so no SATA6 bottlenecks.
My Intel X-25M seems slow by todays standards.
now if Corsair would only announce a new and improved H100, with a stronger quieter pump, the H110, that would make this year amazing!
I hope they use their own controller once again..
communities.intel.com/message/125652
communities.intel.com/message/122877
communities.intel.com/thread/21587
or you forgot about this:
www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-bug-ssd-320-series,13076.html
www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-SSD-320-Series-reportedly-failing-due-to-major-bug.57387.0.html
?
And YES, I also had an Intel SSD also, died after 2 years. Very reliable in-deeed! :shadedshu
Today we should have been hitting at least 7,000 MB/s to 15,000 MB/s read/write speeds by now at an affordable price.
We gone from IDE, EIDE, UDMA, Standard ATA, SCSI etc, with speeds of 33MHz, 66MHz, 100MHz, 133MHz etc. SATA150, SATA300, SATA600 etc.
Also finally, if a system has DDR3, how do you expect a CPU and chipset to move as much data as DDR3 can transfer? First of all, any copy that goes from drive to drive hits the CPU and main memory first. There simply isn't enough bandwidth to pull this off and the added latency of having a disk that far away from the CPU is completely unrealistic... and more is not physically possible with how computers are designed, and that isn't all changing in 2012....and what standard or math formula are you using to determine this? I bet you that your ram on your phenom ii barely hits 15gb/s to show how borked your claim is.
Edit: It sounds like someone needs to read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hierarchy
Todays SSDs are performing as RAMs in 1993. :) Maybe after 20 years we can have the same speed of today's DDR3@1866Mhz. ~ 15GB/s ;)
Perhaps nt300 would be willing to pay the $5.5k for 2800/2800 MB/s claimed by OCZ here:
OCZ Z-Drive R4 CM88 800GB PCI-E PCI-Express 2.0 x8...
And it was not to long that OCZ had issue's for the longest time and pretty sad to buy a SSD to come with a paper notice in the box saying it cannot be used as a bootable drive although it finally can be now..