Nanotech - The Circuits Blog

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.

Discontent with Intel graphics goes back a few years. But the unsealing of 3-year-old e-mail exchanges between Intel and Microsoft reveals something about the present, too.

Intel 915 chipset

(Credit: Intel)

First some background. Intel makes integrated graphics silicon--that is, graphics functionality that is built into its chipsets. Performance is not the name of the game for Intel. Delivering power-efficient, adequate graphics that can handle everyday tasks and do basic gaming is the goal. Anything beyond this is left to the high-octane discrete chips from ATI and Nvidia.

"We've always been consistent that high-end gamers should use discrete graphics," said Intel spokesman George Alfs. Intel graphics is also inexpensive and comes virtually free on some PCs.

But Intel graphics silicon is everywhere. It ships in tens of millions of PCs every year. And herein lies the issue. The silicon becomes the lowest common denominator that Microsoft and game developers must write to because it's so ubiquitous.

This is the root of the Intel 915 integrated graphics and the "Vista Capable" controversy. As widely reported, Intel's 915 (which shipped as standard in many PCs) was not up to running Vista's Aero Glass interface (among other features). So, Microsoft dropped this as a requirement.

Reams of material have been released according to this Seattle Times blog documenting the infighting that took place trying to resolve the 915 issue. The documents stem from a lawsuit that alleges Microsoft misled consumers by lowering the requirements so a 915-based PC could be designated as "Vista Capable."

According to an unsealed motion citing e-mail and internal Intel and Microsoft documentation released by U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman, Microsoft objected to an internal Intel link "positioning the 915 GM as optimum for Windows Vista on mobile PCs." The motion states that Microsoft viewed this as "misleading" and "egregious" and that Microsoft asserted that the 915 chipset "should not even be in the list of recommended hardware for Windows Vista" and further opined that the "higher end of the chipset choices" from Nvidia and ATI were more suitable.

But that may not be the whole story. According to an article on Channel Web, Microsoft did not "cave" to Intel and the 915, but rather "it was Microsoft, led by Poole, that initiated that change all on its own." Will Poole at that time was a Microsoft senior vice president.

"We are seriously confused. We believed that 915 is NOT vista ready as it will never have WDDM drivers," according to an e-mail from Intel Vice President Renee James, cited in the Channel Web article. (WDDM stands for Windows Display Driver Model.)

Whatever the case, Intel integrated graphics was so commonplace that it was a big issue.

(For the record, Nvidia had issues with its drivers and Windows Vista too.)

Intel targets graphics
Fast-forward to September of 2006 and the Intel X3000 and X3100 (G965/GM965) graphics. With this silicon, Intel decided it was going to provide a better graphics experience for gaming in particular. The 965 started shipping in September of 2006, but it took Intel nearly a year to write the drivers needed to unlock better performance.

"New drivers for the company's 965GM chipset, found in many notebooks and midrange desktops, still don't deliver the uniform performance increases promised earlier this year, according to testing by CNET Labs," CNET News' Tom Krazit wrote in October 2007.

Intel documentation (here) says that "Intel recently introduced the 15.6 and 14.31 Windows Vista and Windows XP graphics drivers that enables Shader Model 3.0 including support for hardware vertex shader and HW TnL on the Intel G965, GM965, and G35 Express Chipsets."

The document continues: "This capability has shown enhancements in game compatibility as well as game play" and concludes the "Introduction" by saying: "The end result is that Intel is able to deliver the highest possible frame rates by leveraging Intel's world class processors."

Now fast-forward to the present and the MacBook Air. The first version of the MacBook Air was rolled out in a show of great camaraderie with Intel CEO Paul Otellini. Intel silicon all around: not only a special version of the Intel mobile Core 2 Duo was used, but Intel X3100 graphics, too. At that time, Apple CEO Steve Jobs heaped praise on the Core 2 Duo processor.

Then came the MacBook Air update. Intel graphics out, Nvidia 9400M graphics in.

This time Apple stressed the graphics capability of the Air.

Gains and compromises
To reiterate, the issue is not that Intel graphics are horrendous. It's simply that Intel's graphics silicon is so widespread that it becomes an issue for people, for example, who buy a laptop and later decide they want to play games at a certain level or do more high-level graphics.

What do analysts think about the X3100? Jon Peddie says Intel graphics has improved, but he is cautious. (Note that the X3100 has recently been superseded in laptops by the Intel GMA 4500MHD.)

"Whereas it would never be used by a real gamer (of which I like to consider myself) it will allow someone with a tighter budget to have some experience (with gaming on a PC)," Peddie said in response to an e-mail query. Peddie does research and testing of graphics products from Intel, Nvidia, and ATI.

Peddie: "Based on early tests we have run on the X3100, we found it ran all the games we tried, i.e., Spore, Stalker Clear Sky, Crysis, and Far Cry Warhammer, but "mind you we had to use lower resolution than we would normally, and if the game didn't automatically turn off some of the special features, we had to in order to get a descent frame rate."

He continues: "But the fact that it ran at all is I think a major slap on the back for Intel. Turning features off and reducing resolution is a reasonable compromise considering the costs."

But Intel (to state the obvious) is not Nvidia. "Now having said that I also have to say that the Nvidia mGPU 9400 (now used in the MacBook Air) is much more capable and you can run at higher resolutions with more features turned on," Peddie said.

The conclusion. Intel graphics is adequate and probably does more than enough for most users. But the issue will never go away because integrated graphics set itself up as a low-watermark benchmark for competitors (that offer higher-end discrete cards) to surpass. Meanwhile, it forces multimedia and game developers to make their games and applications run in a less-than-stellar way on millions of PC worldwide.

Is the MacBook Air overpriced? Competitive offerings from Dell and Toshiba reveal that the MacBook Air may not be so extortionately expensive.

A MacBook Air rival, Dell's Latitude E4200 starts at 2.2 pounds for about the same price.

(Credit: Dell)

Of course, it all depends on your perspective: $2,499 for a laptop is a lot of money. But put the Air into the context of its product category--ultraportable laptop--and you see that, by comparison, it's not necessarily overpriced.

(Note: Here we're talking about the just-announced update to the MacBook Air.)

Let's start with Dell's recently announced ultraportable laptop (or 'subnotebook," choose your nomenclature). The 12.1-inch Latitude E4200 is priced at $2,495 configured with a 128GB solid state drive, 2GB of memory, an Intel Core 2 Duo ULV SU9400 processor running at 1.4GHz, the Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 4500MHD, and a 6-cell battery.

(Note: I am not going to draw a comparison with the Dell Latitude E4300 as it does not fall into the category of an ultrathin--less than 0.8 inch thick--laptop the way the E4200 and Air do.)

How do the Air's features fare by comparison? Pretty well. The $2,499 Air also includes a 128GB solid state drive and 2GB of memory. That's where the apples-to-apples comparison ends (pun not intended). It bests the Dell in two significant areas. Despite being less than 0.8 inch thick like the E4200, it uses a more-powerful 1.86GHz Intel processor and Nvidia GeForce 9400M graphics. This is a crucial difference for some users who want the portability but need more horsepower.

That said, let me state the obvious: heat will always be an issue when a relatively high-speed processor is squeezed into a very small space. That's why, presumably, Dell, Toshiba (below) and Lenovo (X301 ThinkPad) have all opted for more power-frugal ULV (ultra-low-voltage) Intel processors. The Air does not use a ULV processor.

Form factors: The Air uses a larger 13.3-inch display and is slightly wider than the Dell overall, as this video shows. The bigger screen and wider keyboard can be an advantage or disadvantage. Apple may strike a better balance of weight and keyboard/screen size, but you get more portability (based on specified weight) with the Dell.

Apple does not bundle, as standard, an external media drive with the Air, however. Dell does. That weighs in Dell's favor.

The E4200 also beats the Air on ports. Packing in 1394, VGA, RJ-45, USB, and eSATA/USB Combo ports. And a docking connector. (No docking station for the Air.)

Toshiba's new ultraportable, the Portege R600, is also a close rival (based on a feature comparison only) to both the Air and the E4200. Like the Dell, this comes with a 12-inch screen, the Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 4500MHD, and a 1.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo ULV SU9400 processor (lower performance than the Air's).

Like the E4200 and Air, it can be configured with a 128GB solid state drive.

Unlike the E4200 and the Air, it squeezes in an optical drive into a form factor less than 0.8 inch thick--in its favor. And offers 3GB of memory as standard, more than the E4200 and the Air.

The R600 also beats the Air on ports. With VGA, 3 USB ports, and an eSATA/USB combo port, in addition to a docking connector.

And the price: $2,999 for the version of the Portege R600 with a 128GB SSD. That's about $500 more than the Air and E4200, so you pay for the extra functionality in that ultraslim form factor. (Correction: the price spread is $500--not $600 as originally stated.)

(For those readers who may want to compare the Sony Vaio ultraportable to the Air go here to see the Vaio TT series. And here's a CNET review of the ThinkPad X301.)

Will Apple's decision to use Nividia chips in its new MacBooks be a catalyst for change?

With all the hoopla surrounding Apple's choice of Nvidia graphics in its new MacBooks fading, it remains to be seen if Nvidia's GeForce 9400M has legs.

Toshiba Qosmio X305-Q708 may presage other designs with Nvidia GeForce 9400M

(Credit: Toshiba)

Intel has a successful integrated graphics franchise and is the leader in laptop graphics. Before I get slammed, let me be clear that I'm not talking about performance. I'm referring to market share. Many laptop suppliers--particularly in the low-cost and ultraportable segments--default to Intel graphics because it offers adequate performance, reasonable power efficiency, and it's cheap (if not free).

The question is, can Nvidia's GeForce 9400M change the industry practice of opting for Intel simply because its solution is adequate and cheap? And, is Apple signaling a sea change? The first indications are that the 9400M offers improvement over Intel's graphics, according to CNET Reviews. (Games and photo editing applications like Photoshop are two obvious areas where Nvidia will beat Intel's newest GM45 integrated graphics.)

And Apple was getting plenty of feedback apparently. Nvidia's recent statement in a conference call may be representative of what other PC makers are hearing from their customers. Apple was getting "a lot of feedback...from the Apple community" who were demanding better graphics, according to Bill Henry, director of notebook marketing at Nvidia.

Nvidia's one-chip 9400M is truly an integrated solution and thereby a direct Intel competitor. In addition to the graphics-dedicated transistors that make up about 70 percent of the die (chip) area, the 9400M chipset includes a memory controller, PCI Express, USB ports, SATA ports, high-definition audio, and legacy support. Importantly, Nvidia said it has maintained the same power envelope of Intel graphics.

But it's not clear whether this will change the dynamics of the market. Whether, for example, the largest vendors that now use Intel integrated graphics in ultraportables will opt for Nvidia as Apple did with its Air. There is a formidable list of vendors that use Intel's GM45. Hewlett-Packard (EliteBook 2530p), Dell (Latitude E4200), Sony (Vaio VGN-TT190UBX), and Toshiba (R600-S4202).

Or maybe a market shift will happen elsewhere. Toshiba has offered a glimpse of what some may do. The high-end Toshiba Qosmio X305-Q708 ($4,199) was announced last week, packing an Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9300, a 128GB solid state drive, and integrated GeForce 9400M graphics paired with two Nvidia GeForce 9800M GTS graphics chips.

The beauty of this design is that a user can switch between the power-sipping 9400M when doing undemanding tasks and the powerhouse 9800 GTS graphics when playing games.

And reports claim that new designs from HP, Dell, and Asus will use the 9400M.

But the jury's out. We'll have to wait to see what other PC makers elect to do over the coming months and whether putting Nvidia graphics in ultraportables and other laptop designs is a new imperative.

Will 2009 be the year that solid-state drives take off? Maybe not. The speedy drives are catching on, but wider acceptance will take time--and the bad economy isn't helping.

Costs are still high for these drives, which typically outdo--and in some cases blow away--hard disks in performance. "2010-2011...that's when we think the price points for the SSD market get attractive enough to really drive stronger growth," Sanjay Mehrotra, president and chief operating officer of SanDisk, said this week during SanDisk's third-quarter earnings conference call.

Samsung is the leading supplier of solid-state drives.

(Credit: Samsung)

Indeed, there is still a wide price gap between hard-disk drives and solid-state drives. The difference, for example, between a 120GB hard-disk drive and 128GB solid-state drive--essentially the same capacity--on the new Apple MacBooks is $500. That's a deal-breaker for a lot of consumers. (On a Dell XPS M1530 notebook, the difference in price between a 250GB 5400rpm hard disk drive and a "Ultra Performance" 128GB solid-state drive is also $500.)

"On the mainstream notebook side we agree with SanDisk that the price points are too high and the added benefits received by customers from SSDs are just not worth the added expense," said Avi Cohen, managing partner at Avian Securities. "We expect the transition in notebooks to take a long time and will probably require Microsoft to change the OS in order to jumpstart this transition," Cohen said, citing the need for Microsoft to make Windows Vista and Windows 7 more SSD-friendly.

Eli Harari, chairman and CEO of SanDisk, believes that solid-state drives will have to wait a little longer yet for their breakthrough.

"It's still a very young market, and 2009 is not the year that it really takes off," he said during SanDisk's earnings call. In addition, solid-state drive demand will not be enough to siphon off the flash memory oversupply that is plaguing the flash memory industry, he said. "I don't believe...that 2009 inventory overhang is going to be solved through solid-state disks."

Nor does Intel--which just started shipping its first high-capacity solid-state drives this fall--see the market really taking off for a couple of years in laptops.

"I believe within in two years when the economies of scale come into play and the prices hit the right point, it will not only be in the more expensive systems but go down to mainstream (laptops)," Mooley Eden, Intel's general manager of mobile platforms, said in Taipei on Tuesday. Intel is shipping 80GB drives now and will ship a 160GB solid-state drive later this quarter.

Seagate, the largest hard-disk drive supplier, plans to enter the market in 2009 but sees "price as an inhibitor right now," according to Rich Vignes, senior manager of market development at the Scotts Valley, Calif.-based company. He also says standards work needs to get completed to make enterprise customers comfortable and "overcome endurance fears."

Beyond that, enterprise customers are showing resistance to accelerated adoption of solid-state drives as the economy worsens. "Conditions across technology are awful," said Avian Securities' Cohen. "On the enterprise SSD side, where we thought it made the most sense for the transition to occur...we have seen a slowdown in momentum for this shift as CTOs and CFOs look to conserve cash and slow new adoption programs."

The latest MacBook Air masks a lot of new electronics under an old skin.

To me, the new MacBook Air (MBA) is truly a second-generation product despite its unchanged appearance. But before I explain why, let me clarify where I am coming from.

I have been using an MBA for the last eight months. Why the over-priced Air? I am a minimalist when it comes to computers (though not necessarily when it comes to spending money on computers). The more spartan the laptop is, the better. In a well-executed design this translates to more portability, which, for me, takes priority over performance and ports.

And this is especially true for the Air. The economy of design dictates lower performance and fewer connectors than mainstream laptops.

Updated MacBook Air has new processor, chipset, graphics, and solid state drive

(Credit: Apple)

Having said that, the new Air seems to have made significant gains in performance. (Again, this is a preview, so only benchmarks will bear this out.) The Air uses Intel's newest Penryn-architecture low-power mobile processors, not the older Merom processors--which were, let's be honest, already dated even way back in January when Apple launched the Air.

Penryn-class processors come with 6MB (versus the Merom's 4MB in the previous Air) of cache memory and faster front-side bus speeds (1066MHz versus 667MHz). Of course, other MacBooks use Penryn chips too but it is significant that these powerful mobile processors are now being squeezed into the Air's form factor.

The widely reported use of Nvidia's GeForce 9400M graphics is another big plus. This is a step up from Intel's integrated graphics, which for too long has really been the only choice for subnotebooks and ultraportables. Better game playing and the ability to drive Apple's new 24-inch LED Cinema Display as well as the 30-inch Cinema HD Display are other benefits. (More on the GeForce 9400M here.)

And let's not forget memory. The Air uses DDR3 memory versus the DDR2-specified chips of the previous Air. DDR3 delivers better bandwidth and lower power consumption than DDR2.

Storage. Generally speaking, solid-state drives are faster than hard disk drives, especially when reading data. The Air and the ThinkPad X300 legitimized SSDs. The new Air takes this to the next level with a larger 128GB solid-state drive (versus the previous model's 64GB SSD). The newer 128GB (and larger-capacity) solid-state drives are based on multilevel cell technology. MLC allows larger capacities at lower cost. But MLC-based drives typically don't deliver the performance of single-level cell (SLC) drives. Dell, for example, offers its Latitude E4200 ultraportable with both high-performance SLC drives and lower-performance MLC SSDs.

Last but not least is price. OK, so $2,499 is not a steal (for the 1.86GHz model with a 128GB SSD). But look at it this way, you get a lot more for the same price as the previous Air. You get a faster processor, better graphics, speedier memory, and a larger solid state drive. Though I wouldn't call this a great deal by any means, Apple could have priced it higher. (Apple has been known to push the envelope on pricing.)

Longstanding Issues

Let me also address some longstanding issues I've had with the Air. I currently use one of the original models--launched back in January--that comes with a 1.8GHz processor and 64GB solid state drive. The Air's aluminum body is wonderful, but it hasn't maintained the tolerances that it had at first. Specifically, the seams just below the keyboard sometimes creak (for lack of a better word) and, at times, noticeably expand and contract. Let me be clear: this is not a big issue and is noticeable only occasionally. Most users probably wouldn't notice this.

Heat. I hesitate to cite heat as an issue because every laptop I have ever owned has had heat issues--some much worse than the Air's. It's a little like complaining about your car's engine block getting warm. But because the aluminum body itself acts as a heat sink of sorts, excessive heat can become an issue when the Air is pushed to its limits. That is, a lot of open applications and a heavy workload.

Screen response time. This could be subjective to some extent but the LCD's response times seem to be slower than, for example, the response times I get from my other laptop: the 3.3-pound HP 2510p. In other words, whenever I go back to working on the 2510p after working on the Air for a while, I feel that the screen response times are better on the 2510p.

But overall the Air is an amazing piece of engineering and a delight to use.

(For another MacBook review, go here.)

Regular or ultra? Consumers will now have at least a couple of performance options when they order solid-state drives on the newest ultraportable notebooks from Dell.

Dell Latitude E4200

(Credit: Dell Computer)

Hard disk drives are getting scarcer by the week in the ultraportable notebook market. Dell has officially started selling its new 2.2-pound Latitude E4200 this week with solid-state drives as the only storage option, accelerating a trend in ultraportables away from hard disk drives.

The popular ThinkPad X301 also comes with solid-state drive options only.

The SSD options on the E4200 come in two flavors, standard or "Ultra".

Dell pre-announced the high-performance Samsung Ultra SATA-II solid-state drive in February. The SSD is able to read data at 100 megabytes per second (MB/sec) and write it at 80MB/sec, 60 percent faster than SATA I drives, according to Samsung.

The new SSDs will "leave traditional notebook hard drives in the dust," Dell said when it announced the option. "Our labs benchmarked this drive in a Latitude notebook and saw a 35 percent overall system performance increase over a standard 2.5-inch 5400rpm notebook hard drive using SYSmark '07. That's even more impressive when you realize that the difference between standard 5400rpm and performance 7200rpm drives (in the same generation) is 10 percent on average," Dell said at that time.

Dell's Ultra drive has approximately 20 percent better read/write performance over more conventional SSDs, according to Avi Cohen, managing partner at Avian Securities. And Dell gets its SSDs from sources other than just Samsung, including STEC and Micron Technology, Cohen believes.

SSDs are generally much faster than hard disk drives at reading data (which is what computer users spend most of their time doing). SSDs are becoming popular in ultraportable notebooks because they have advantages crucial for small laptops: they weigh less, generally use less power, generate less heat, and withstand shock better.

Samsung chart comparing SSDs to HDDs. Samsung also makes hard disk drives.

(Credit: Samsung)

The new SATA II SSD can resist up to 1,500 Gs of shock in a half millisecond compared with a shock resistance rating of 300 Gs in 2 milliseconds for a typical HDD, Samsung said.

Intel is getting into the SSD performance grade act too. The chipmaker offers Extreme SSDs and mainstream SSDs.

Extreme SSDs offer faster write speeds of up to 170 MB/s, while mainstream drives are rated at up to 70 MB/s, according to Intel.

The 80GB and 160GB Intel SSDs for the mainstream notebook market are based on multilevel cell (MLC) technology, while the Extreme 32GB and 64GB for the enterprise market are based on single-level cell (SLC). In 2009, Intel expects to have MLC drives with capacities up to 320GB.

MLC allows drive makers to build higher-capacity drives at lower cost but is neither as fast as SLC nor as inherently reliable.