ddrueding
Fixture
I still have 1 of my 3 original 16GB MTRON SATA SSDs...$1200, IIRC.
There are too many different OCZ drives with similar names.
The OCZ $100 SSDs seem a bit rubbish anyway, the extra cost for OCZs existing SSD of the same size, which is almost twice as fast, is in the order of $30... I guess if the only factors are price, impact resistance, and power consumption it's worth it but for most people I'd have thought speed was a serious motivating factor when considering an SSD...
I've had 6 in systems for several weeks.
How do they compare in performance to other SSDs in the same price/capacity bracket?
I saw this linked from HardOCP...
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/2010/20100315comp.htm
I thought the X25-V 40GBs had been out for a while?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167025
http://www.overclock.net/hard-drives-storage/654073-intel-x25-v-40gb-review-aeogenia.html
And Ingram Micro list intro date of Feb 2010?
Or did I miss something?
PS. The X25-V 40GB is roughly listed at AU$154. Not bad? (since it offers roughly 70% of the IOPS as compared to the 32GB X25-E which retails 4x the price as the X25-V).
I miss Gary. Wonder what he's been up to?
Buck too.
pradeep said:This would give room for SATA 3/USB 3 expansion in the future. Would need to switch to an AM3 processor and DDR3 too. I imagine all the "new shiny" gadgets coming up will be USB 3 based. I would take that over the SSD premium at this time. Bigger monitor is always hard to resist, there is no such thing as too big IMHO.
Handy said:I guess only you know the people who buy the systems you build and their level of knowledge of the systems. You might get a better bang for the dollar by going from your 320GB drive to say a 1TB, 2 platter drive which offers a little more speed due to increased density.
Pradeep said:Or maybe that's your mid-range type system?
dd said:If you are looking for snap in a system, consider an Intel chip. Regardless of benchmarks, Intel chips have felt snappier in my experience since the C2D was released.
Hi Buck
Nice to see you posting again.
From my limited experience, I'd like to raise a couple questions.
First, isn't screen size tied to productivity?
I notice I can do a LOT more on a larger screen then I could on a 19".
Greg
Y&wut kind of E? All my E, says otherwise.Too large is just as bad as too small IME.
Y, plenty out already
Yes. I was thinking that the LSISSS6200 is more of an enterprise product since the individual cards are removable. It looks more compact as well.
The OCZ Z-drive I'm using now is an LSI SAS RAID controller with some OCZ SSDs on it. So technically, they are already in that market.
Yes, screen size is tied to productivity. However, as LM stated, "Too large is just as bad as too small IME." That has been my experience too. It works out that for large companies, the price / size of 19" is a sweet-spot for most users. The 23" is great for some of the power users or Executives. I've come across too many complaints with 26" and up for the office space. Those size monitors are better for home, home / office or niche use.Greg said:First, isn't screen size tied to productivity?
A boot drive around that size is perfect for the office environment. As you showed, it certainly makes a boringly average system fun to use. That is the idea behind adding an SSD to my budget line.Greg said:A 30 gig enough for a boot drive for your office?
What naming convention?