New solid-state drives still pack sticker shock

The newest solid-state drives are just starting to hit retail. But would you buy one?

Intel X25-M solid-state drive has received glowing reviews for its performance

(Credit: Intel)

Solid-state drives are attractive because they're generally faster than hard-disk drives, particularly at reading data--generally something PC users spend most of their time doing.

But price is still an obstacle, especially to the frugal consumer.

Sunnyvale, Calif.-based OCZ Technology is now offering some of the most competitively priced solid-state drives based the high-speed Serial ATA (SATA) II interface.

OCZ Vertex SSD drives start at $129 for a 30GB SSD. Other capacities include a 120GB drive for $469 and a 250GB SSD for $869. Though $869 may seem pricey compared to a 7200RPM 250GB hard-disk drive that can retail for well under $100, it's relatively cheap for a large-capacity SSD. In the past, SanDisk had sold a 256GB drive through resellers that was priced, almost incredibly, at more than $15,000. Axiom had been selling 256GB solid-state drives priced above $6,000.

OCZ says the Vertex Series of SSDs have a 1.5 million-hour mean time before failure (MTBF), "ensuring peace of mind over the long term." Solid-state drives, since their inception, have been plagued by doubts about write durability. SSD manufacturers such as Intel, Micron Technology, and Samsung say long-term durability is no longer an issue.

The OCZ drives are backed by a two-year warranty.

Intel's X25-M SATA solid-state drive is now widely available at retail. An 80GB X25-M is priced at just more than $500 at most retailers. Reviews of the X25-M's performance have been very positive.

Unfortunately, the only way to get the newest SSDs in some cases is by ordering a laptop. Samsung is now offering its latest-and-greatest 128GB SATA drives in ultraportable laptops such as the MacBook Air and the Dell Latitude E4200 and E4300.

The Latitude E4300 can be configured with a 128GB SSD for $460 more than the standard 160GB 5400RPM hard disk drive.

[myles taylor]

I don't know if the benefits outweigh the costs. I don't really see the benefits in having a SSD over a regular drive right now. Maybe sometime in the future when they're cheaper but the benefits seem so small right now. I am probably missing something but I just don't get the appeal. I mean, yea they are a little better but worth 5x the price?

[catbutt5]

"Durability is no longer an issue..." Then why does a nearly $1,000 SSD with no moving parts only come with a 2 year warranty when Hard Disk drives (which have a lower MTBF) have 5 year warranties? Expecting problems are we?

[3rdalbum]

Hard disk drives come with 5 year warranties? Not anymore, sunshine.

[john55440]

I agree! I *recently* bought a Maxtor Portable USB drive, and it came with a 5-year warranty.

[wilmepe]

Western Digital Drives still come with a 5 year warranty.

[xcopy]

@3rdalbum

Sorry sunshine, but you need to stop shopping in the bargain bin...

5 year warranties are common options (from multiple vendors) for anyone that understands how to buy a drive.......

[dragonbite]

Maybe when my 5400 RPM 40 GB laptop drive dies I'll replace it with a SSD. And even then I'll reduce the writes to the drive by using tmpfs and recomendations I found here : http://en.opensuse.org/OpenSUSE_on_the_EeePC#Decrease_Disk_I.2FO_to_Improve_SSD_Longevity until it is no longer an issue (which may be by the time my hard drive fails).

Oh, and aren't they supposed to take less electricity to operate?

[Penguinisto]

The funny part is, I can buy a 64GB USB geek-stick for a lot less than what they're charging for a 30GB SSD.

MAaybe if these folks stopped and thought about that one for a moment...

[sparrowhyperion]

I will probably wait to get an SSD until the price drops to be competitive with or close to the price of a standard HDD. The speed would be nice, as would the idea of never again hearing the click of death be; but right now, they are just too expensive.

Give them a few years and the prices will start to drop significantly. I remember when a 10MB SCSI drive as the biggest and baddest thing out there, and you had to chuck out another $300-$400 for a SCSI Host controller in addition to the $800 for the drive itself. Prices fall, and technology improves with time. Hard drives are now almost a commodity item.

[Compumind]

Here's my view:

The SSD manufacturers must increase density, reliability and decrease price for it to take off.

The longer that this takes, the longer it will be for HDD's to be replaced with SSD's.

How much does Silicon cost, really? Isn't it easy to manufacture?

[michaelo1966]

I'm guessing the housing of those drives contain a lot of empty space; that they're only that large to fit the form factor of the mechanical drives they're replacing? I wonder how small these can be made?

[Compumind]

Hi everyone:

Please watch this video - it even shows the innards of the SSD!

http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/products/flash/ssd/2008/what/overview.html

No reason why it should cost this much.

Enjoy!

[Raabscuttle]

Um, why is OCZ so expensive? $129 for a 30GB SSD when Geeks.com has 32GB SSDs at $67.99 for either SATA or PATA. Oh, and don't get me started on why they sell 64GB $127.99 - which is still under that OCZ 129 pricetag for half the storage...

[biffhenerson]

Buyer beware! The price matches the technology used. The drives that use the fast write technology are about double the price of the slower write technology. Just because it is a SSD doesnt mean it is fast when writing data.
The technique used to write on Single Layer Cell (SLC) memory is faster than Multi-Level Cell (MLC) but the SLC memory is much more expensive.
Here is a great source of information and comparison of many of the drives:
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/flash_flood


But if you really want fast and have an unlimited buget, here is some RAM drive technology that blows SSD away! The Fusion ioDrive:
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1683/1/exclusive_look_at_fusion_io_iodrive_pcie_solid_state/index.html

[br77575]

This is the way of the future, folks. An ideal machine is one with no moving parts, and a solid state drive is a way of eventually getting us there. If an operating system is written specifically for this type of drive, there will be no need for RAM or a swap file. You will just turn your machine on and everything will immediately be there. There will not even be a movable button to turn it on. This has been my vision for a good number of years, so am I just dreaming?

Further more, a read only operating system could be burned in to a dedicated drive. It could not be altered by a virus or any other means. In addition, it could not be copied and no one could pirate it. Any application or data you work with will be on a separate drive or drives. Am I still dreaming?

[Mr. Dee]

Sorry, but I will skip this category of technology until it reaches 1 TB minimum and that's for laptops and it cost the same as a mechanical drives.

[kevinmwolf]

I took the plunge and purchased a Patriot Warp 128 GB SSD. This was after five mechanical drives failed in my laptop within two years. Several owners were kind enough to post benchmarks of several SSDs with mechanical drives. Aside from Intel's new SSD, the improvements in read/write speeds and power consumption seemed negligible and not worth the extra cash.

However, (even before flash-based drives were available) I dreamed of having a solid-state drive because mechanical ones are very fragile and I've lost LOTS of work from hard drive failures. Its all about the durability factor for me. The next time my laptop is inadventently left on while carrying it in my backpack I can sleep better that night knowing my drive will probably survive.

In conclusion, is there a real need for solid state drives? Yes!