Back to Article

  • ImSpartacus - Wednesday, February 22, 2012 - link

    SRT doesn't seem like it's angled at the enthusiast market, so is it marketed toward the OEM market? Are there any OEM machines with SRT or another similar caching solution? Reply
  • douglaswilliams - Wednesday, February 22, 2012 - link

    The Ivy Bridge goes over Hawley Creek.
    The Sandy Bridge goes over Larson Creek.

    Okay, I think I have it straight in my brain now.
  • Mathieu Bourgie - Wednesday, February 22, 2012 - link

    I still don't get why one would get 24GB of caching performance here and there for $120 when one can get a 120GB SSD for $140, use it as a boot drive for W7, demanding programs/games and benefit from full SSD performance all the time? Reply
  • MrSpadge - Wednesday, February 22, 2012 - link

    Use a 60 GB SF2281 drive for the cache instead of this - much cheaper, faster and a higher cache hit rate due to the added capacity. You won't have to fiddle around with "which game to install where". Reply
  • Mr Perfect - Friday, February 24, 2012 - link

    Exactly. That's what I did, anyhow. I don't have to worry about what gets installed where, and SRT takes care of accelerating whichever game or program I happen to be using this week. It's surprising that most enthusiasts dismiss this tech. Reply
  • dcollins - Friday, February 24, 2012 - link

    This is exactly what I am suggesting people do when they build new machines. Managing two separate drives is annoying, even for an IT guy like me. Having to remember to change the install location of every program, every time is a PITA. Reply
  • Stahn Aileron - Wednesday, February 22, 2012 - link

    Because many consumers can barely handle managing a single drive, much less multiple drives a power user who would bother with an SSD would probably have.

    People are packrats in this digital era. It's MUCH easier (from a user experience point of view) to create a hybrid drive volume with an HDD with SSD cache. Less thought goes into managing data directly by the user. Everything just goes on one volume.

    Also, the caching adapts to your usage pattern. While you don't get the SSD advantage 100% of the time, you do get it for the vast majority of your actual usage time. People tend to use only a handful of apps constantly and repeatedly.

    There's not much reason to waste SSD space on a game, IMHO. (My OS and apps are on an SSD. Most of my games are on an HDD instead for space reasons.) Recall that many games these days are multi-GB data hogs. Mass Effect 2 is nearly 20 GB with all the big DLC installed alone. A 120GB SSD will only get you around half a dozen to maybe a dozen modern games after the OS (not taking into account savegame data, other apps, documents, media, etc.)

    Lastly, with caching, ANYTHING on the volume can get a boost in access speed (given enough usuage). It's not a bad compromise really. You get a nice mix of performance and cost/GB with a hybrid SRT-cached set-up. For many consumers, that's probably more favorable than having to manage multiple volumes themselves.

    I could go into more details with my opinion on this, but I'll stop now.
  • superunknown98 - Thursday, February 23, 2012 - link

    It is early in the morning, but you just claimed an average user can't handle having a single you recommend that they figure out how to buy and setup a cache ssd and also a storage drive? I agree with the original poster, these cache drives should be $40 or less, because as it is now it's cheaper and easier to buy a 60gb ssd to install windows on. Reply
  • PubFiction - Thursday, February 23, 2012 - link

    First of all OEMs can ship this as a solution. This way the customer does not need to know anything. Second alot of less tech savy or medium savy users will have a friend do something for them. Obviously the friend could set this up one time or show them how then be free, but managing files constantly is not possible to do this way. Finally even some power users just do not want to decide which files to load on an SSD. I am one of them, typically I play a game for a while then rarely play it again. With an SSD cache the OS deals with that all seamlessly. Reply
  • ckryan - Wednesday, February 22, 2012 - link

    I actually bought a 311 20GB. I never got around to using it as a cache drive with Z68.

    I was more interested because it was half of an X25-E 32GB with TRIM and 34nm SLC. I for one was hoping that the 313 series would be available in 40GB capacities for around $200 -- a pipe dream, apparently. The X25-E is magic.
  • Hulk - Wednesday, February 22, 2012 - link

    I think this is a case of trying to bring a product to market to fill a price point and by the time the product gets to market the price point has evaporated. We're seeing SSD's every day that are well under $1/GB and dropping fast. There just isn't any time or room in the market for this product. And I think a product like this is more complicated than simply having a single SSD drive and perhaps a traditional second drive. A manufacturer can put the OS on the SSD and set up "My Library" to be on the traditional mechanical drive. No fuss no muss.

    Just my opinion but I'd be surprised if this was the next big thing. We'll see in a months.
  • KeypoX - Thursday, February 23, 2012 - link

    Why are these so expensive? They are smaller and slower than other SSDs. Reply
  • TheWrongChristian - Thursday, February 23, 2012 - link


    But they should last forever. Assuming data is only written to the drive when the driver deems the data worth caching, not a huge amount of writes will be done, and the writes will not be performance sensitive. So low write volume combined with SLC NAND FLASH (and reliable firmware!) makes for a fire and forget cache drive.
  • Lugaidster - Sunday, February 26, 2012 - link

    It's the only publicly available cache solution that doesn't require special hardware. I know it's a beta, but still. I'd say it's a good way of putting things into perspective since everyone with an SSD can install it. Since I don't pretend to buy a new computer for the next 6 months (at least one that's SRT compatible), I wouldn't mind a comparison just to see how much (if any) I'm missing out.

  • Ghandalf - Monday, February 27, 2012 - link

    This drive could be a wonderfull zil drive for zfs if it has a capacitor. Are there any information about this?

    Unfortunately, the intel 311 did not have any capacitor.

  • Transmitthis14 - Thursday, March 01, 2012 - link

    I'd like to know if I can retire one of these SSD's and use it in an old laptop as the main drive.

    For example, I would use it in my desktop as a cache, then 2years later, when prices are better, I would probably buy a large ssd for my desktop. If the cache SSD, can be wiped and have some firmware installed to make it usable as a normal boot drive - then it will have a use.

    If it's just always going to be a cache drive, then the cost is not really comparable to "other" cache SSD solutions, or indeed a standalone SSD.

    As to the point about why use cache at all, I'm still in two minds about that, A nice simple solution, with only one drive to backup / manage has a lot to be said for it. I'd prefer to be playing my games, than un-installing and reinstalling them on different drives.
    But a standalone SSD has speed benefits, and better usage scenarios, resale value. So its really depends on individual use case and budget.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now