Advertisement
Promo

Become a member of the ZDNet UK community

Rupert Goodwins

View blog's RSS Feed

Mixed Signals

Any sufficiently advanced information is indistinguishable from noise

Tuesday 19 August 2008, 7:43 PM

Intel SSD - details. 32-160GB, production in next 30 days, £400-ish

Posted by Rupert Goodwins

Briefing time! Intel is telling us about its solid-state drives. There are two types of SSD, the multi-level cell NAND flash and the single-level cell NAND flash. Multi-level cell stores more bits per memory location but at a performance hit; single-level cells are faster and more reliable but less dense.

More later – here are the official specs:

There are two 'Mainstream' models using multi-level cell; the X18-M and the X25-M, at 80GB and 160GB, 1.8” and 2.5” form factors. Claimed figures are sequential read at 250 megabytes/second and write at 70 megabytes/second, and an 85 microsecond read latency. Power levels are very low – 150 milliwatts typical active, 60mw idle. At 1.2 million hours mean time between failures (MTBF), reliability is equally impressive. These will have around a five year useful life with a 100GB/day workload - the industry norm is 20GB/day.

The 80GB is sampling, with production due to start in 30 days; the 160GB is expected to sample in the fourth quarter and hit production in the first quarter of 2009.

The 'Extreme' model, X25-E, is single-level cell, with 250MB/s read, 170MB/s write, two million hours MTBF, 75ms read latency, and a whole 2.4 watts active power. That's only available in 2.5” form factor, in 32 and 64 GB capacities, and is aimed at replacing 15KRPM server drives. The 32GB is sampling now, with production expected in the next 90 days; the 64GB will sample in Q4 and go into production in Q1 '07.

Intel is talking of 40% - 150% performance increase in disk-intensive tasks over a 5400 RPM hard disk in ordinary PC clients, and between 1.4 and 25 times speed advantages over (unnamed) competitor SSDs. A HDD video server capable of supporting 2000 streams can be replaced with an SSD system supporting 2400 streams, 98 percent power reduction,75 percent space reduction and 6x read performance increase. How closely these figures match real-world numbers is to be seen, but they're bold.

Inside, the flash drives have a parallel ten channel architecture with advanced wear leveling algorithms (and no, they're not saying how they work).

All of the above comes with SATA 1.5Gb/s and 3.0Gb/s interfaces.

Now, let''s see if we can get some prices... ah, no, we can't. Pricing will be announced when production is announced. But 'very competitive and value oriented' when announced next month.

PRICE UPDATE: - No, Intel's still not talking. But HP, which has also announced new glittery notebooks with Intel's SSD, is talking about a premium of between $800 and $900 for the SSD variants.

FUN UPDATE: - Intel gave everyone the briefing 'mechanical models' of the SSDs, with stickers on them proclaiming their mechanical modelhood. Peel those stickers off, though, and they looked remarkably like the real thing.

Which they were. But on pulling one apart with my fingernails, I discovered that they had the flash memory inside (ten 64 gigabit chips) and a Samsung cache chip, but the controller chip (where all the cleverness lives) had been ripped out. I asked - yes, that had been done to all the drives, in order to give Intel a few more weeks of secrecy. Still, I now have twenty 64 gigabit flash chips...



Comments on this post

PeterI

One question is how it compares to 7200RPM laptop disks which are a quarter of the cost? Comparing to 5400RPM disks is a bit of a cheat.
I've been using them for 4-5 years now and they do make a machine feel snappier.
Given the cost of RAM these days I'm not sure how much the random access advantages of flash actually matter.

Updated by PeterI on Aug 20, 2008 10:53 AM

Rupert Goodwins

Intel has done a lot of usability testing on SSDs versus HDDs, and says that the difference is startling. I dare say we'll do the same, once they turn up; certainly, the raw data the company reports would indicate that using one would feel very different to using a hard disk.

I did notice the choice of 5400RPM disks. They must have tested the faster HDDs too - the fact that they haven't published those figures is interesting in its own right.

Posted by Rupert Goodwins on Aug 21, 2008 3:16 PM

Xwindowsjunkie

I think the reason they focused on 5400 rpm HDDs is that is the speed selection that most closely resembles the actual speed a 7200 rpm HDD would be running at in a laptop when you add in power management of the HDDs.

Obviously Intel is shooting for the laptop market but the industrial market is a perfect match for the SSDs, especially the newer dual CPU SBCs.

These SSD's are a big step up from the parallel port SSD architecture they described in June at the ATOM unveiling.

We've been using compact flash and IDE form factor flash drives for over 7 years and only recently in the last 2 years have they been getting close to "5400 rpm" performance.

I can't wait to get my hands on some working product. The price is an issue but not as badly as it would be in the laptop market.

Updated by Xwindowsjunkie on Aug 22, 2008 9:03 AM

Rupert Goodwins
  • Rupert Goodwins
  • Location, location, location
  • Member since: October 2006
ZDNet Staff

My Blog Archive


Contacts' Latest Discussions

Number of Tracked Discussions: 3,192

ator1940 ator1940

Chrome-OS download

Friday 27 November 2009, 3:30 PM

5 comments
ator1940 ator1940

The real Chrome-OS

Friday 27 November 2009, 2:06 AM

5 comments
manek manek

Lotus 1-2-3?

Thursday 26 November 2009, 6:23 PM

8 comments

Contacts' Latest Blogs

Number of Contacts Blogs: 18

Avatar Jonathan Bennett

Did Microsoft violate the GPL?

Wednesday 11 November 2009, 10:19 AM

0 comments

Skip Sub Navigation Links to CNET Brand Links

Help

Become part of the ZDNet community.

Newsletters