bit-tech.net | Intel X25-E 32GB SSD

Jasio 17th December 2008, 08:31

I'm surprised Intel even bothers to send out samples to "enthusiast" sites... I mean, what kind of value rating out of 10 were they expecting? Not exactly shining a good light on their products, sure it performs well but it's such a waste of money knowing you can buy a trio of 300GB Raptors for the same price.

Tim S 17th December 2008, 08:38

On the subject of VelociRaptors, I'll get in before anyone asks "where the VelociRaptor is" - it'll be on its way to us as soon as we're back in the office after Christmas/New Year and we will have a review of it as soon as possible after that.

Toka 17th December 2008, 08:48

Have a good christmas Timmy :)

The boy 4rm oz 17th December 2008, 08:49

It may be the fastest drive you have seen but for the price only someone truly insane would buy one, especially for only 32GB of storage. Until SSDs come done more in price and can comfortably out perform standard mechanical drives I don't really want to know about them. No point wishing for something that won't happen in a long long time.

Player-x 17th December 2008, 09:34

@ Bit-Tech
I think that these test also should be done whit a controller whit onboard cache, like the $150 Areca ARC-1200 whit 128MB.
A controller like this would companstat the X25-M bad wrigth preformace and properly also enhance the X25-E wright preformace
http://www.areca.com.tw/products/2ports.htm

My 2 cents

spazmochad 17th December 2008, 09:44

Thats a huge flaw you left for the final page, especially on a measly 32gb drive.

Baz 17th December 2008, 10:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by spazmochad
Thats a huge flaw you left for the final page, especially on a measly 32gb drive.

the rewrite issues only became apparent towards the end of testing - didn't really seem fair to include it previously.

Bauul 17th December 2008, 10:18

As a concept product: awesome. Looking forward to the next generation.

Dr. Strangelove 17th December 2008, 10:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baz
the rewrite issues only became apparent towards the end of testing - didn't really seem fair to include it previously.

Is it too late to ask for a nice graph illustrating this "issue"? I guess it does not matter that much I doubt anyone would actually buy the drive, but just because I'm the curious type....

Burnout21 17th December 2008, 10:27

I have been looking around at SSD drives, OCZ seem just too cheap so i expect performance to be poor!

Basical i am looking you get a tablet notebook which i've choosen already and to swap out the HDD for an SSD to increase the notebooks battery life a little.

Would the change in drives effect the battery performance by much or is this just myth?

Dr. Strangelove 17th December 2008, 10:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burnout21

Would the change in drives effect the battery performance by much or is this just myth?

Hmm I think Bit looked at this and found a small advantage, I remember Tomshardware making a right @ss of themselves when they claimed that SSDs used more power, which they later had to correct. This is also down to the individual drives I think....

(I could be wrong about all of this, could not be bothered to use the search function)

laynesassepd 17th December 2008, 10:39

ok i dont respond here much but you have a $700 + sd card thats 32 gb, which is not that much space right, well what if you loaded say crysis off of your ram say you had 8-16 gb. how fast would that be or is it possible??? $700 plus is crazy for 32 gb. id think if you were prone to use 32 gb (SD) HD at $700 than you would think of 16 gb ram as possibility for a load for a program or game wouldnt this work too

Baz 17th December 2008, 10:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
the rewrite issues only became apparent towards the end of testing - didn't really seem fair to include it previously.

Is it too late to ask for a nice graph illustrating this "issue"? I guess it does not matter that much I doubt anyone would actually buy the drive, but just because I'm the curious type....

I tried to get some reliable numbers but they were very unreliable due to the different state of the data in the cells when being rewritten. Sometimes it would be just a second or two slower (presumably most of the cells were set to off), while sometimes it would be more than twice the recorded time. In the end it averages out at about half the speed of the initial write when rewriting, but it's tricky to nail down anything more specific.

Denis_iii 17th December 2008, 11:03

who buys this at these prices? jeez

Nexxo 17th December 2008, 12:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burnout21

Would the change in drives effect the battery performance by much or is this just myth?

Hmm I think Bit looked at this and found a small advantage, I remember Tomshardware making a right @ss of themselves when they claimed that SSDs used more power, which they later had to correct. This is also down to the individual drives I think....

(I could be wrong about all of this, could not be bothered to use the search function)

That is pretty much correct. TomsHardware made the mistake of using a looping task on the drives. The SSD drives performed this faster and hence executed more cycles, hence using more power relative to HDDs. In real life terms the SSDs are more efficient. However 2.5" laptop HDDs are very power efficient to start with, using perhaps 0.5 Watts at idle and 2 Watts at the very brief moments of activity. So there is not that much on it.

zr_ox 17th December 2008, 12:07

The price is insane, an interesting comparison would be the 64GB OCZ E-Sata drive...just for fun!

Dr. Strangelove 17th December 2008, 12:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baz
In the end it averages out at about half the speed of the initial write when rewriting, but it's tricky to nail down anything more specific.

never mind you fixed it faster than me

DorkSterr 17th December 2008, 12:26

Not worth the money.

steveo_mcg 17th December 2008, 12:29

To you, i can see some enterprise uses for it, small but frequently accessed database that needs to be fast, at a company which can afford to throw money around.

And for us lowly consumers its interesting to see how tech like this evolves.

airchie 17th December 2008, 12:56

I'm still considering a 'Solid' series SSD from OCZ sometime soon.
Any idea if you'll be testng one of those Tim?

Anyone bought a drive from OCZ's new 'Solid' range?
What's your thoughts?

The boy 4rm oz 17th December 2008, 13:26

I'm just gonna wait for Memristors. SSD's time in the sun has been very brief, if any. ATM Mechanical drives are more than enough for me.

mm vr 17th December 2008, 14:30

"Crysis boot time"? Boot? :|

Tim S 17th December 2008, 17:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by airchie
I'm still considering a 'Solid' series SSD from OCZ sometime soon.
Any idea if you'll be testng one of those Tim?

Anyone bought a drive from OCZ's new 'Solid' range?
What's your thoughts?

We're trying to get them in - I believe samples are a few weeks away, but we are on the list! :)

Burnout21 17th December 2008, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nexxo
That is pretty much correct. TomsHardware made the mistake of using a looping task on the drives. The SSD drives performed this faster and hence executed more cycles, hence using more power relative to HDDs. In real life terms the SSDs are more efficient. However 2.5" laptop HDDs are very power efficient to start with, using perhaps 0.5 Watts at idle and 2 Watts at the very brief moments of activity. So there is not that much on it.

Ah the bit-tech god of knowledge has spoken, and offered amazing advice. I thank ye!

Think i shall stay with the 160Gb mech drive, other reason i was thinking of a SSD is i wont need 160Gb, as all work is saved on an external HDD and pen stick, i dont store on the laptop in case it gets nicked or broken, and my luck it would happened just before a deadline with no time to pull the drive!

salesman 17th December 2008, 17:21

Hey so I was wondering the time it takes to reformat the SSD from fully written to unwritten. Considering back in the day it would take a day to reformat a measly 1.6 gig HDD, for me anyways. As for that matter how long does it take to reformat any SSD.

Happy holidays guys.

Log in

Intel X25-E 32GB SSD

Comments 1 to 26 of 30