160GB Intel X25-M SATA 2.5" Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) $89.99 AR + S&H

Quote from Heim : I hope you aren't using a connection to the internet with IPv4 because it's outdated if your PC NIC is capable of IPv6.

lets stay on topic.

Quote from Heim : I hope you aren't using a connection to the internet with IPv4 because it's outdated if your PC NIC is capable of IPv6.

I dunno. Speed should be fine but what about old Sandforce controller? It may have issues.

Quote from ReverseHandedJO : the technology is outdated if you were to use it with a MB with SATA 3, you would be better off with a SSD with newer SATA3 technology.

Again, in the same way that SATA I wasn't obsolete when SATA II architecture/hard drives came out. It's backward compatible. and if the speed is only slightly less than the latest and greatest SSD for most real world tasks I don't see how pairing it with SATA III is "throwing good money at old technology." If the pipe isn't the bottleneck in the system and it's not then what actual difference does it make? Things that do matter however like the NAND quality being better and therefore should last longer than current NAND, and the controller being better than current SSDs are important things.

Quote from ReverseHandedJO : lets stay on topic.

It's a a relevant analogy/point albeit sardonic, it has parallels. As does the SATA I to SATA II or SATA II to SATA III, or DDR2 to DDR3. When DDR3 first made it's debut it was newer but actually slightly slower than DDR2. That scale of when DDR3 dramatically began outpacing DDR2 did not take nearly as long as it is going to take with SSDs but it's another example where not everything old is bad.
Heck, even RDRAM (RAMBUS) was faster than DDR2 but their dirty handed attempt to monopolize the market was ultimately their undoing and why they went with a initially slower DDR2 technology, among other factors; now that's - anyway I'm done I don't need/want to try to convince people to buy these I hope they hang around instock long enough to get a coupon/code or price cut again.

Quote from Apex : I dunno. Speed should be fine but what about old Sandforce controller? It may have issues.

This isn't an "old Sandforce controller" it's Intel through & through and is as I said before the gold standard & benchmark and why many wish/can't believe that Intel departed from what was the best.

Quote from ReverseHandedJO : the technology is outdated if you were to use it with a MB with SATA 3, you would be better off with a SSD with newer SATA3 technology.

Quote from Bdubslawman : How is it throwing money away though if it operates at close to the speeds?

NERD FIIIIIIIIIGHT!!!

Quote from ReverseHandedJO : the technology is outdated if you were to use it with a MB with SATA 3, you would be better off with a SSD with newer SATA3 technology.

Most SSDs at this size don't exceed SATA II limits in random read/writes so this drive wouldnt be noticeably slower in normal operations. Even sequential writes on the Samsung 840 barely approach SATA II limits. Some folks can probably benefit from the extra read speed on sequential but they can choose to get more storage for the buck.

Unless you're buying a Neutron GTX you prob won't see many SSDs with random speeds in the SATA III strata.

Of course a SATA 3 drive on a SATA 3 bus allows higher maximum throughput. Fact is, it doesn't make a real world difference in computing for most users and applications. These drives are still fast, especially for random data.


Also agree w/ Bdubslawman that the Intel G2 series is not obsolete technology.
As manufacturers have pushed the NAND envelope by squeezing more bits into smaller (cheaper) dies, the recorded bits are more prone to (voltage) corruption and shorter NAND lifespan. In some important ways the older tech is superior.


TU on the deal itself, although TD has had this price AR for many weeks. Would jump on some in the ~$75-80 range.

Quote from Heim : I hope you aren't using a connection to the internet with IPv4 because it's outdated if your PC NIC is capable of IPv6.

LoLOL, i am officially a nerd, because i find this sooOoo funny =)

Quote from Bdubslawman : Again, in the same way that SATA I wasn't obsolete when SATA II architecture/hard drives came out. It's backward compatible. and if the speed is only slightly less than the latest and greatest SSD for most real world tasks I don't see how pairing it with SATA III is "throwing good money at old technology." If the pipe isn't the bottleneck in the system and it's not then what actual difference does it make? Things that do matter however like the NAND quality being better and therefore should last longer than current NAND, and the controller being better than current SSDs are important things. It's a a relevant analogy/point albeit sardonic, it has parallels. As does the SATA I to SATA II or SATA II to SATA III, or DDR2 to DDR3. When DDR3 first made it's debut it was newer but actually slightly slower than DDR2. That scale of when DDR3 dramatically began outpacing DDR2 did not take nearly as long as it is going to take with SSDs but it's another example where not everything old is bad. Heck, even RDRAM (RAMBUS) was faster than DDR2 but their dirty handed attempt to monopolize the market was ultimately their undoing and why they went with a initially slower DDR2 technology, among other factors; now that's - anyway I'm done I don't need/want to try to convince people to buy these I hope they hang around instock long enough to get a coupon/code or price cut again. This isn't an "old Sandforce controller" it's Intel through & through and is as I said before the gold standard & benchmark and why many wish/can't believe that Intel departed from what was the best.

QFT.
A new 0.01ms SSD isnt going to be much faster than this 0.01ms SSD if youre upgrading from a 7-15ms hdd.

Intel X25 controller is a favorite among a giant group of enthusiasts/professionals/regular users for a reason.

Quote from Bdubslawman : Again, in the same way that SATA I wasn't obsolete when SATA II architecture/hard drives came out. It's backward compatible. and if the speed is only slightly less than the latest and greatest SSD for most real world tasks I don't see how pairing it with SATA III is "throwing good money at old technology." If the pipe isn't the bottleneck in the system and it's not then what actual difference does it make? Things that do matter however like the NAND quality being better and therefore should last longer than current NAND, and the controller being better than current SSDs are important things. It's a a relevant analogy/point albeit sardonic, it has parallels. As does the SATA I to SATA II or SATA II to SATA III, or DDR2 to DDR3. When DDR3 first made it's debut it was newer but actually slightly slower than DDR2. That scale of when DDR3 dramatically began outpacing DDR2 did not take nearly as long as it is going to take with SSDs but it's another example where not everything old is bad. Heck, even RDRAM (RAMBUS) was faster than DDR2 but their dirty handed attempt to monopolize the market was ultimately their undoing and why they went with a initially slower DDR2 technology, among other factors; now that's - anyway I'm done I don't need/want to try to convince people to buy these I hope they hang around instock long enough to get a coupon/code or price cut again. This isn't an "old Sandforce controller" it's Intel through & through and is as I said before the gold standard & benchmark and why many wish/can't believe that Intel departed from what was the best.

Quote from sr71 : Most SSDs at this size don't exceed SATA II limits in random read/writes so this drive wouldnt be noticeably slower in normal operations. Even sequential writes on the Samsung 840 barely approach SATA II limits. Some folks can probably benefit from the extra read speed on sequential but they can choose to get more storage for the buck. Unless you're buying a Neutron GTX you prob won't see many SSDs with random speeds in the SATA III strata.

the point is it is outdated technology for a SATA3 MB.

Modern SSDs absolutely will saturate a SATAII controller. They're bumping up against the edge of SATAIII's limits in some circumstances already. While normally I agree with Dbuds that people get too wrapped up in "newer tech" (think PCIE 2.0 vs. 3.0), this is one of those cases where it will make a difference.

I agree this is a good SSD if reliability is preferential to speeds, but it is slower. That's not always a bad thing in real world perception, especially since most daily use is random reads/writes, but there's a difference between sugarcoating and fudging.

Edit..

Quote from Ransom : Modern SSDs absolutely will saturate a SATAII controller. They're bumping up against the edge of SATAIII's limits in some circumstances already. While normally I agree with Dbuds that people get too wrapped up in "newer tech" (think PCIE 2.0 vs. 3.0), this is one of those cases where it will make a difference. I agree this is a good SSD if reliability is preferential to speeds, but it is slower. That's not always a bad thing in real world perception, especially since most daily use is random reads/writes, but there's a difference between sugarcoating and fudging.

benchmark all you want
this page tells the whole story http://techreport.com/review/2399...reviewed/9

Quote from KarateB0b : benchmark all you want this page tells the whole story http://techreport.com/review/2399...reviewed/9

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The link you posted compares several newer SATA II and SATA III drives, with the SATA II drives such as the Intel 320 not doing so great, often by as much as 50%. That's even worse when you realize most of those drives are 256GB and the 320 they used was 300, a pretty decent advantage.

The closest comparison to the XM-25 on that chart is the Intel 320, a drive which is even faster than the XM-25 at the same size (and this one on sale is nearly half as large), but gets embarrassed pretty badly by some of the SATA3 SSDs.

TLDR: XM-25 is a good drive. But as demonstrated by these benchmarks it is very much slower than modern drives.