The rather snazzy-looking OCZ SSDs have finally hit a price point that doesn't cause bank managers to faint.
Solid state drives became that much more affordable yesterday, with the announcement of a sub-£250 128GB unit from OCZ Technology.
First spotted by
MacNN/Electronista, the drive packs 128GB of storage into a 2.5” SATA-equipped brushed aluminium chassis aimed at the notebook market. In addition to the more than usable capacity, the device – branded as part of the
Core Series of SSDs – is quick off the mark, too: 120Mb/s read and 80Mb/s write, with a staggering 0.35ms seek time.
OCZ have yet to give any indication of UK pricing, but the US version is offered at a more than reasonable $479 – around £240. If your budget doesn't stretch to that level, the Core Series also includes a cheaper 64GB version at $259 (£130) and a bottom-end 32GB unit for $169 (£85).
With the price
exceptionally low compared to similar products from other manufacturers, it's hard not to assume the quality is somehow inferior. With the capacity and speed taken care of, the obvious assumption is that corners have been cut in the reliability stakes. According to OCZ, however, this isn't the case: quoting a mean time between failures of 1.5 million hours, the drives look set to be just as reliable as their more expensive counterparts. OCZ isn't afraid to put its money where its mouth is, either, with a two-year warranty as standard across the range.
Ryan Petersen, OCZ's CEO, stated that the difference in price between mechanical and solid-state storage has “
limited adoption of vastly superior SSD technology, until now.” Well, there's also the slightly thorny issue of limited write cycles, but that doesn't make such good press release copy.
The drives are described as “
available”, but what that
actually means in terms of getting your sweaty hands on one isn't entirely obvious – just keep your eyes peeled.
Anyone tempted now prices are dropping, or are you still waiting for sub-pound-per-gig pricing? Share your thoughts over in
the forums.
meh, but I guess if you are replacing a 4,2k rpm laptop drive it will still be a massive upgrade, any chance for a review?
Stated here for OCZ Core Series SATA II 2.5" SSD:
Read 120-143 MB/sec
Write 80-93 MB/sec
And here for OCZ SATA II 2.5" SSD:
Read up to 100MB / sec
Write up to 80MB / sec
from the ocz page linked in the article http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/flash_drives/ocz_sata_i_2_5-ssd
However, the official page states 120MB/s - but the press release says 120Mb/s, which is quite a difference.
So what exactly was the previous lowest price for a 64gb and 128gb SSD from one of these other manufacturers?
that explains it, thx for the explanation what went wrong there.
It must be MB/s - HDD speeds nearly always use this metric, and 120Mb/s would be painfully slow!
Yep, when the price drops about another 50%... then I might seriously start considering SSD drives. :)
Trufax..
However, at the moment the benefits don't warrant the price premium. And then of course HDDs are still SO much more capacious.
http://www.play.com/PC/PCs/4-/5983607/OCZ-OCZSSD2-1C32G-32GB-SATA-II-2-5-SSD-Solid-State-Internal-Hard-Drive/Product.html
are these the ones? if so the 32gb drive seems pretty good :) (and transfer rates seem ok too)
128Gb is more than I can fill in a long time
32GB is just a bit too small, and not cheap enough compared to the 64GB one
According to my math 2 years is 17,531.6255 hours.
Interesting none the less
I have to wonder if manufacturers aren't shooting themselves in the foot with the 2.5" form factor. Sure, it's great for notebooks, but there are a lot more people who would put a 3.5" in a desktop than who will open their notebook to install a 2.5" drive. Yes, you can get an adaptor, but why not sell it in both sizes?
Also, although this drive is a 2.5" form factor, it's SATA - which means it'll connect to a desktop with no adaptors required. That said, you'll still need to figure out a way to mount the thing, so I guess an adaptor /is/ required.
MTBF != expected life
Its a rather useless metric really, practically speaking. Traditionally (ie with regards to HDDs) it determines where in the market the product is aimed (the high MTBF tend to be enterprise or near-line drives whereas the lower ones for home use). Its pretty easy for manufacturers to fiddle the sample size or environmental conditions in order to get any MTBF they like for a given drive.
Is it simply a matter of upscaling production, and spreading R&D over more units? Did they strike a good deal with manufacturers? I'm curious :)