Options

Solid State Drives - It's the future, man

OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
AnandTech has a lengthy, in-depth review of Intel's new MLC-based solid state drive, the X25-M. This baby is currently going for $500USD on NewEgg.

It looks kinda like this:

drivescr8.jpg

So what's the point? Well, uh, let's see. It's faster. A lot faster. It's quieter--actually, it's dead silent. It's cooler. It uses less power. Oh, and one more thing--no moving parts. So at least theoretically, it's more durable and reliable than a spinning HDD.

One of the problems these drives have historically suffered from is that your data can be lost after a certain number of erase/program cycles (writes, essentially). Intel seems to believe they've solved this problem, and are rating these drives for 100gb/day for 5 years--and the drives will let you know when they start to go, too.

Another issue that MLC solid state drives in particular have suffered is a tendency to pause between small write operations for as long as a second. Intel has also fixed this issue with the X-25.

So when we talk about speed, how much do these drives get you? Well, would you like to load hefty apps like Photoshop in about two seconds? Because, yeah. These guys can handle that.

Selected benchmarks courtesy of the AnandTech review linked above:

Application loading
17325.png
17326.png
17327.png


Multitasking
17334.png
17333.png
17336.png
17335.png

The bad news: All this amazing performance comes at two prices: The first is, well, price. As I mentioned above, it's $500 for one of these drives. The second is capacity--the drive only offers 80gb. So if you snag one, it might be best to use it as an OS/application drive and rely on old-fashioned drives for actual data storage.

That said, this is a fairly new technology, and I think we'll be seeing a lot of increase in the storage as the price decreases over the next year or two. I know one thing: I won't be building another performance PC without at least one of these drives.

So what do you think? Fad, or the future of data storage?

My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
OremLK on
«13456

Posts

  • Options
    Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2008
    Definately the future if they can get the price down. At $150, I wouldn't think twice about throwing a 40 gig drive in as my boot drive, while relying on standard HDD tech for main storage.

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • Options
    YoshuaYoshua Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Solid state drives aren't exactly new. They've been around for over a decade and they have always been very expensive compared to conventional hard drives.

    For some applications I could see the cost being justfiable, but for the average Joe? Not so much. Though it'd be nice if these could someday reach the price range of mere mortals.

    Though you could accomplish much the same effect with a RAM disk and a lot of physical memory.

    Yoshua on
  • Options
    OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    They seem to be getting down to consumer levels now, and it makes me happy. I mean, $500 is still a fucking lot for a hard drive, but one must assume that this price is more an early adopter thing, as per usual with Intel.

    OremLK on
    My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
  • Options
    1ddqd1ddqd Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Gaming Machine? Yes - I'd rather use this than a Raptor - lower power, less noise, big plus! The HDD is the loudest thing in a watercooled PC!

    1ddqd on
  • Options
    variantvariant Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    The price will obviously come down with time...though it's going to be a while before we see 1TB SSDs.

    variant on
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    One of the problems these drives have historically suffered from is that your data can be lost after a certain number of erase/program cycles (writes, essentially).

    Something that most people forget is that traditional spinning magnetic platter hard drives have a limited lifespan too, because inevitably the bearings fail and the drive no longer works. The difference is that for SSDs, the lifespan is a known quantity and if the drive controller is designed to (as these Intel drives are), it can warn you when it's getting close to the end of its life. I wish normal hard drives could do that. (Yeah, there's S.M.A.R.T., but it's usually too little and too late.)

    I just wish price per gigabyte wasn't so damn ridiculous on these things.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    xzzyxzzy Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Well the upside with traditional HDD's is they tend to stay spinning once started. It's those power outages after 2 years of uptime that kill them. ;)

    I think the size on this series of SSD's is disappointing.. the lure for using them is I/O rates, and you really don't need a high I/O rate to start up applications. Sure, half a second is a lot faster than 2 seconds, but that's not where you're going to spend most of your work day wasting time.

    It's hauling around large files or performing operations on those files where you lose time, and an 80GB drive isn't useful for much more than a staging area (ie, copy file off HDD, work with it on SDD, when finishd push back to HDD to make room for another data set).

    It's definitely a promising start but I can't see people laying down bread for these things until they can get 250GB for $500.

    xzzy on
  • Options
    GrimReaperGrimReaper Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Surprised there hasn't been a mention of the X25-E which is the best SSD around.

    Not only does it beat other SSD's but its write performance (normally the weakness of SSD's) far exceeds that of the fastest drive currently out by almost double.

    For example:

    fc-create-install.gif

    Once SSD's hit an acceptable price for roughly a 100GB drive then i'll be going SSD for my main drive and a normal hard drive for data storage. The read and write performance of a X25-E that'd be 100GB would be awesome for gaming.

    GrimReaper on
    PSN | Steam
    ---
    I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
  • Options
    xzzyxzzy Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Too bad the X25-E is only 32GB. ;)

    It's definitely the future but for now it's so expensive you'll only see this stuff in servers at work.

    xzzy on
  • Options
    EinhanderEinhander __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2008
    I think the reason SSDs are moving to the forefront of people's minds is because they are starting to show up in netbooks. My EeePC has a 4GB SSD (a slow Phison, but whatever), and the system was only $299.

    SSDs are definitely the future. While it's not exactly new tech, there is a ton of development going on in the field right now, since netbooks have shown that having a drive that is silent (or damn near - a few high performance SSDs are mounted with fans, but they are literally a whisper), is faster, has a lower power consumption, and is smaller than a standard hard drive is extremely attractive, especially for mobile computers.

    Once the price comes down, we're going to see these things everywhere.

    And Jesus who outside of a server would even use 100GB/day for five years anyway? In a home setting, the realistic lifetime of those Intel SSDs would be considerably longer.

    Intel also has a 160GB SSD for $945.

    Toshiba says they've got a 512GB SSD that they're going to show off at the CES. It's supposed to launch Q1/Q2 and set you back about $1,600.

    But yeah, once these drop in price to reasonable levels, we'll be seeing them everywhere. You can already tell because every major conventional hard drive manufacturer is either starting production or in production of SSDs.

    Einhander on
  • Options
    OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I would actually pay $1,600 for a 512gb SSD if it comes with this kind of performance. That would be just about perfect for my OS, application, and game installation drive.

    I was looking up stuff about Windows 7 and apparently you'll be able to optimize the install for an SSD. Don't know how much of a difference that will actually make, but apparently Microsoft thinks it's important enough to implement.

    OremLK on
    My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
  • Options
    xzzyxzzy Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I would imagine it has to do with the fact that Windows 7 is going to be the OS that successfully replaces XP, and will get used for most of the next ten years.. which means it'll probably be around when SSD starts to become mainstream.

    xzzy on
  • Options
    EinhanderEinhander __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2008
    I suspect the only options it will have for SSD-based systems is something that will minimise system writes to prolong the life of the drive.

    Einhander on
  • Options
    Dark ShroudDark Shroud Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    OremLK wrote: »
    I would actually pay $1,600 for a 512gb SSD if it comes with this kind of performance. That would be just about perfect for my OS, application, and game installation drive.

    I was looking up stuff about Windows 7 and apparently you'll be able to optimize the install for an SSD. Don't know how much of a difference that will actually make, but apparently Microsoft thinks it's important enough to implement.

    I'll second this. My next rig is going to have a Veloci Raptor as the C: drive and a WD Terebyte HD for data storage. I'm actually tempted to go SCSI with the speeds they offer. A SCSI drive that's 300gig and can achieve transfer speeds around 3gigs is still half the price of that 80gig SSD.

    Though I would love to put that X25-M SSD in my PS3. http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2332520,00.asp

    Dark Shroud on
  • Options
    xzzyxzzy Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Einhander wrote: »
    I suspect the only options it will have for SSD-based systems is something that will minimise system writes to prolong the life of the drive.

    That's easier said than done, disk access is a pretty low level activity and damn near every piece of software is written under the assumption that it can write whenever it wants.

    So it'll be pretty impressive if they can optimize heavily for SSD drives.

    xzzy on
  • Options
    OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    OremLK wrote: »
    I would actually pay $1,600 for a 512gb SSD if it comes with this kind of performance. That would be just about perfect for my OS, application, and game installation drive.

    I was looking up stuff about Windows 7 and apparently you'll be able to optimize the install for an SSD. Don't know how much of a difference that will actually make, but apparently Microsoft thinks it's important enough to implement.

    I'll second this. My next rig is going to have a Veloci Raptor as the C: drive and a WD Terebyte HD for data storage. I'm actually tempted to go SCSI with the speeds they offer. A SCSI drive that's 300gig and can achieve transfer speeds around 3gigs is still half the price of that 80gig SSD.

    Though I would love to put that X25-M SSD in my PS3. http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2332520,00.asp

    Well, but with SCSI drives, don't you still have slow access times? I thought that was one of the main attractions of the SSD--it makes your system simply feel more responsive than a spinning disk could ever do.

    Plus, with SCSI, you still have to deal with SCSI. And does anybody really want to have to deal with SCSI?

    And then there's obviously the heat, noise, and power issues.

    OremLK on
    My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
  • Options
    bashbash Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I'm most interested in SSDs in small form factors (2.5" and 1.8" drives). Even with relatively sluggish write speeds, 1.8" SSDs are a hell of a lot faster than 1.8" HDDs and even manage to use less power. Both aspects are huge benefits for small notebooks/netbooks. Drive speeds of smaller notebook drives tend to be a major performance inhibitor for notebooks in general. If anyone is interested I found this article which has some excellent analysis of the guy's OCZ drive's performance.

    Tuning Vista SP4...Windows 7 to perform better with SSDs is not that difficult. The drivers will just have to be more aware of the cluster size for the SSDs (often multiple MBs) and buffer/schedule writes accordingly. System logging and cache systems will have to use larger in-memory buffers to keep from shitting all over the drive all the time.

    bash on
    comi-sig1.jpg
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Someone needs to sell me on how these things rate compared to conventional hard drive lifespans before I'd buy them I think. Convince me that it'll last as long or longer and I'd be happy. Also price per gigabyte obviously.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    EinhanderEinhander __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2008
    Well,
    OremLK wrote: »
    One of the problems these drives have historically suffered from is that your data can be lost after a certain number of erase/program cycles (writes, essentially). Intel seems to believe they've solved this problem, and are rating these drives for 100gb/day for 5 years--and the drives will let you know when they start to go, too.

    as an example for newer drives.

    It will likely be a while before $/GB though.

    Einhander on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Ah, but you see it doesn't answer my question: if I took a regular HDD and put that through it, what would happen? How long before it failed?

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    FyreWulffFyreWulff YouRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2008
    More than likely about 2 1/2 years.

    FyreWulff on
  • Options
    xzzyxzzy Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Yeah, around work, there's a pretty steady point right around 3 years where data storage HDD's start failing. Some last a little longer, some don't. Fiber channel disks tend to stay spinning for ever, but have a really bad habit of not powering back on once they lose power.

    I don't know precisely what their transfer rate a day is, but 100GB/day is probably a fair average.

    xzzy on
  • Options
    EinhanderEinhander __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2008
    I wonder how much the cost of upgrading to SSDs would be offset by not having to pay to deep freeze your server rooms for five years?

    Einhander on
  • Options
    KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I think that I would seriously consider buying one of these right now if I was building a new gaming PC. Happily that is about a year off at least.

    Kalkino on
    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • Options
    EinhanderEinhander __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2008
    Not a bad call. Prices will only go lower in a year.

    Einhander on
  • Options
    xzzyxzzy Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Einhander wrote: »
    I wonder how much the cost of upgrading to SSDs would be offset by not having to pay to deep freeze your server rooms for five years?

    None?

    Because almost all of the heat comes from the CPU and power supplies.

    xzzy on
  • Options
    EinhanderEinhander __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2008
    xzzy wrote: »
    Einhander wrote: »
    I wonder how much the cost of upgrading to SSDs would be offset by not having to pay to deep freeze your server rooms for five years?

    None?

    Because almost all of the heat comes from the CPU and power supplies.

    Racks of 10,000/15,000rpm hard drives contribute a considerable amount of heat.

    Einhander on
  • Options
    xzzyxzzy Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Einhander wrote: »
    xzzy wrote: »
    Einhander wrote: »
    I wonder how much the cost of upgrading to SSDs would be offset by not having to pay to deep freeze your server rooms for five years?

    None?

    Because almost all of the heat comes from the CPU and power supplies.

    Racks of 10,000/15,000rpm hard drives contribute a considerable amount of heat.

    And it's still peanuts compared to the cpu.

    Our worker node room consistently overloads its available cooling in the summer. The room with all the disks? It gets warm, but never causes problems.

    xzzy on
  • Options
    ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Anyone know if the intel x-25 M will be price dropping anytime soon, like by the end of the month?

    Because it was 600 bucks when it came out, then it dropped to 500 and has been there for a while so..

    Obs on
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    It'll drop when someone else shows up making competent SSDs and not a second before then.

    Of course, Toshiba looks like they might be doing that soon. Not by the end of the month, though.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    SLC drives are pretty damn competent, about the same as or better than the X-25M. Problem is, they're all more expensive than it is. But there is definitely competition in the SLC segment, so hopefully that will help drive prices down, all around.

    OremLK on
    My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    SLC drives are about twice as expensive to manufacture, per gigabyte.

    but they do get around ten times the write cycles before they die, so there's tradeoffs all around, I guess.

    Still, a shitty drive controller can slow SLC drives down just as easily as MLC drives. The one in my Eee (the 901 has a small SLC and a large MLC) still gets bogged down with small, random, rapid-fire writes, although not nearly as quickly or as badly as the MLC, which is near-useless for any practical purpose other than streaming MP3s or something.

    This is because the Asus Phision controller is shit.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    wait so write cycles on the X-25 M are shit?

    Obs on
  • Options
    ScrubletScrublet Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I saw this last month: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/SSD-OCZ-Super-Talent,6683.html. Obviously not an indepth review, but if those rated speeds are anywhere close to accurate in practice, that's pretty good. I mean if you look at it from the normal-user perspective, those Intels are fast as shit but something half as good is still fast as shit compared to the 5400 and even 7200 drives most people run.

    Scrublet on
    subedii wrote: »
    I hear PC gaming is huge off the coast of Somalia right now.

    PSN: TheScrublet
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    wait so write cycles on the X-25 M are shit?

    It's an MLC drive so you have about 10,000 write cycles (for each sector), not 100,000, but it does some very good load balancing compared to other drives, so it'll last a lot longer than your typical MLC SSD.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    wait so write cycles on the X-25 M are shit?

    It's an MLC drive so you have about 10,000 write cycles (for each sector), not 100,000, but it does some very good load balancing compared to other drives, so it'll last a lot longer than your typical MLC SSD.

    So is it likely that by the time the drive dies there will be newer and cheaper ones available?

    Obs on
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    well, that's true of any SSD, really. Price per gigabyte seems to drop pretty rapidly in that market.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    risumonrisumon Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    So looking on newegg and looking back at the original post. I can get a ~60gb ssd for ~$140 or so which sounds decent for a boot drive. Is there any real area where these fail compared to a 7200 platter drive? I am always doing computer stuff on the cheap, so if I went SSD it would definitely be a MLC drive for now.

    risumon on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    Dark ShroudDark Shroud Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I decided to go ssd for the new rig I'm planning. I'm probably going to wind up spending as much on the SSD as I will on my video cards. I never though I'd go back to 80gigs for a boot drive.

    I'm tempted to splurg and get one of these for my 60gig PS3.

    Dark Shroud on
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    risumon wrote: »
    So looking on newegg and looking back at the original post. I can get a ~60gb ssd for ~$140 or so which sounds decent for a boot drive. Is there any real area where these fail compared to a 7200 platter drive? I am always doing computer stuff on the cheap, so if I went SSD it would definitely be a MLC drive for now.

    for pretty much any MLC drive not made by Intel, you'll have some major problems with small, random, rapid file writes, such as those that you get from writing to log files.

    Read the article in the OP for details, specifically this page: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403&p=7 and the following one.

    Daedalus on
Sign In or Register to comment.