|
"Solid-state drives continue to be one of the hottest trends in computing,". Ok so why release them with yesterdays standard of SATA2/3 instead of SATA3/6. Not to mention the competition (OCZ) has drives that are almost twice as fast in reads and writes than read speed of 270MB/s and write speeds of 220MB/s. I know it is better than Intel's last gen, and that there may be advantages to the drive itself if the last iteration is anything in consideration. I just don't get the not releasing a SATA3 connectable drive it is backwards compatible by default. I think this of course does kick off one thing we have all been waiting for which is a price functionality war. I have of course thought this before. So we will see! With the prices going down and performance going up though that usually does signal something of that nature. I do hope so as SSD drives to me (and as I have mentioned before my SSD is nothing compared to the Intel or OCZ coming shortly) are a very direct as well as functional performance advantage in a computer. Running a couple in a raid setup would be even faster. The thing is that is almost not needed with the speeds available in the OCZ Sata 3 drive. The cap as well as the available speeds and connection will be absolutely blazing by default. While I do state some negativity regarding Intel here on these drives specifically I need to make sure that is focused as I truly see it. The Intel drives in general have up until now outperformed most if not all others even though there specs sometimes suggested otherwise. SO I am not kicking these to the curb in any way. I just don't understand the rationality of not using a open, faster, and backwards compatible interface such as Sata3/6. |
|
I won't be buying an SSD until they become more mainstream with lower prices. I agree with you Rapid why the hell not include a SATA 6Gb/s connetion rather then an old standard |