Feeds
85%
Intel X25-M

Intel X25-M 34nm Flash SSD

The chip giant's second-gen solid-state drive

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

Business security measures using SSL

Active power consumption remains unchanged at 150mW, while idle power consumption rises slightly, from 60mW to 75mW.

Intel X25-M

This time the back of the board is empty... how long before a 320GB drive appears?

The major change that results in the change in fabrication process is a reduction in production cost which, in turn, leads to lower retail prices. When Intel launched the 1G drives, the prices were $595/£399 for the 80GB model and $945/£799 for the 160GB version. When the competition started to pile into the SSD market with drives that used controllers from Indilinx, JMicron and Samsung, we saw Intel’s prices drop to $390/£207 and $765/£506, respectively.

The 2G drives are priced significantly lower: $225/£172 for the 80GB and $440/£334 for the 160GB.

You can't compare the price of Intel SSDs with the other manufacturers' offerings directly as the storage capacities differ. Intel offers 80GB and 160GB, while Samsung has 128GB and 256GB drives, and the memory companies round off the capacities to 120GB and 250GB.

If we look at the cost per gigabyte, the Intel drives started at £5 per GB which was reduced to £2.59 per GB and £3.16 per GB when the 1G drives had their price cuts. With 2G, those prices come down to £2.15 per GB (80GB) and £2.09 per GB (160GB) which is very similar to the competition and it puts the Intel, Indilinx and Samsung controllers on an even footing.

Externally, the 2G Intel drive has undergone a few changes. The casing has changed in colour from black to silver, and the drive has been slimmed down from 9mm to 6.5mm so it can fit in any laptop drive bay. Intel supplies a plastic spacer that can be attached to ensure the drive fits snugly in a larger bay.

Intel X25-M

Intel includes a spacer for bigger drive bays

In the past, we've reviewed the 80GB X25-M and now with 2G we have finally got our hands on a 160GB drive with pre-release 2CV102G2 firmware. We tested the 2G alongside the 80GB X25-M and a 128GB Patriot Torqx which has an Indilinx controller. All three were fitted into a Core i7 system using 32-bit Windows Vista Ultimate Edition.

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
Oi, Tim Cook. Apple Watch. I DARE you to tell me, IN PERSON, that it's secure
State attorney demands Apple CEO bows the knee to him
4K-ing excellent TV is on its way ... in its own sweet time, natch
For decades Hollywood actually binned its 4K files. Doh!
Phones 4u website DIES as wounded mobe retailer struggles to stay above water
Founder blames 'ruthless network partners' for implosion
DARPA-backed jetpack prototype built to make soldiers run faster
4 Minute Mile project hatched to speed up tired troops
Hey, Mac fanbois. HGST wants you drooling over its HUGE desktop RACK
What vast digital media repository could possibly need 64 TERABYTES?
Apple Pay is a tidy payday for Apple with 0.15% cut, sources say
Cupertino slurps 15 cents from every $100 purchase
Apple's ONE LESS THING: the iPod Classic disappears
RIP 2001 – 2014. MP3 player beloved of millions. Killed by cloud
prev story

Whitepapers

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk
A single remote control platform for user support is be key to providing an efficient helpdesk. Retain full control over the way in which screen and keystroke data is transmitted.
WIN a very cool portable ZX Spectrum
Win a one-off portable Spectrum built by legendary hardware hacker Ben Heck
Saudi Petroleum chooses Tegile storage solution
A storage solution that addresses company growth and performance for business-critical applications of caseware archive and search along with other key operational systems.
Protecting users from Firesheep and other Sidejacking attacks with SSL
Discussing the vulnerabilities inherent in Wi-Fi networks, and how using TLS/SSL for your entire site will assure security.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.