Back to Article

  • crimson117 - Tuesday, April 03, 2012 - link

    Also on Reply
  • cknobman - Tuesday, April 03, 2012 - link

    Price is still a little to high.

    120gb needs to be <$135.
    180gb needs to be <$175.
  • mckirkus - Tuesday, April 03, 2012 - link

    The 520 240GB list price is $581 and it's selling for $352 on Amazon right now.

    My point is that it's pointless debating price until the thing is actually available for purchase.
  • magnetar - Saturday, April 07, 2012 - link

    Those prices would be fine for a newly released SSD of those capacities. The 128 GB Vertex 4 is $179 now, and 128 GB Crucial M4's have rarely if ever been below $149. They are also fine prices for an Intel SSD.

    Regarding the performance specs, perhaps Intel is just not playing the performance marketing games as is the norm with SF based SSDs. They pioneered that on the 520, by stating both compressible and non-compressible data speeds. I'm so sick of the, "550 MBs", " with 551 MBs...", "... and an amazing 555 MBs...", nonsense.
  • Makaveli - Tuesday, April 03, 2012 - link

    Those prices won't be retail once those jerks gets a hold of them. Reply
  • RussianSensation - Tuesday, April 03, 2012 - link

    Current sandforce generation is now old. They are just reusing the same controllers.

    How about the new Vertex 4 with the new Indilinx controller launching tomorrow?

    Now that's actually worthy of talking about.
  • This Guy - Tuesday, April 03, 2012 - link

    Probably something something NDA. Reply
  • A5 - Tuesday, April 03, 2012 - link

    Yeah for real. OCZ isn't going to launch a new SSD without an AT review - they're obviously under NDA.

    They're probably under NDA on the 330 as well, hence the big "we found this on" disclaimer in this article.
  • akumar - Wednesday, April 04, 2012 - link

    look @ the youtube video:
  • Hulk - Wednesday, April 04, 2012 - link

    Or was it that they just weren't going to make their own controllers? Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Wednesday, April 04, 2012 - link

    I haven't heard anything about Intel getting out of the SSD business. However, it seems that they are no longer interested in making their own controllers and rely on third parties instead. Reply
  • akbo - Friday, April 06, 2012 - link

    If only that were the case. Intel could come up with 22nm tri-gate controllers that would kill the competition :D Reply
  • iwod - Wednesday, April 04, 2012 - link

    The 60GB is competitively priced. Added with Intel Firmware and reputation this seems to be the SSD everyone can afford and should get. Reply
  • Wolfpup - Wednesday, April 04, 2012 - link

    I've got an like my 320 and my G2 (?). I like the non-buggyness of Intel's controllers. I like the 320's built in hardware encryption.

    If this 330 doesn't also have hardware encryption, I'm not interested-I'd much sooner go for another 320.
  • Coup27 - Friday, April 06, 2012 - link

    So what is this? A 520 with async NAND? A castrated 520 with fever populated channels? Both of those with capped firmware? The 320 has never been cheap, but it was bought because it built on the X25-M so it was a solid 3Gbps performer. With Crucial and Samsung offering solid 6Gbps performers for less, I don't believe the market which existed for Intel in that regard will still exist.

    On a entirely different point, I am not sure why Intel hasn't received more bad publicity for not including 4 smaller screws with their drives. If you remove the screws from any Intel drive (minus 510) to turn it into 7mm, the whole thing falls apart as its held together with the same screws which go through the spacer. You of course can't re-use those screws because then they poke out the top and dont clamp anything.

    Samsung have the correct approach by making a 7mm chassis without screws and PROVIDING a 2.5mm plastic spacer with adhesive back.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now