5 ms·
Partly it is just marketing fluff, Intel trying to save their face and hoping that most will not remember the promises of revolutionary product while what they
by slizard 10y ago
Partly it is just marketing fluff, Intel trying to save their face and hoping that most will not remember the promises of revolutionary product while what they released is barely evolutionary.
Can't find a better article right now than this SEmiaccurate rant [1] which is quite inflammatory, but does not push falsehoods AFAICT. But Intel has essentially walked back from the 100-1000x improvements it initially claimed to something that's barely better than NVMe in terms of performance and robustness seems far from initial claims too.
[1] https://semiaccurate.com/2017/03/10/intel-mislead-press-xpoint-next-week/ https://semiaccurate.com/2017/03/10/intel-mislead-press-xpoi...
- petra 10y agoI understand why Intel claimed 100-1000x improvement: it's great for the stock. But what happens now if it's not true, will the stock loose all that gain ? or some of that gain will stay ? And is it legal ?
- slizard 10y agoI don't think there's anything illegal in ove-promising and severely under-delivering. Also, given the long delay of the 1st gen product release Intel's massive PR and marketing machinery had plenty of time to rewire many if not most people's expectations. Doesn't have the endurance and the orders of magnitude performance advantage promised? Just focus QD1 performance, feed 3-5-10x instead to the media for long enough, over-provision to be able to deliver an OK consumer product and keep everyone's hopes up that revolution will come "soon". People have short memory (even tech journalists), especially when there is not enough competition.
- Joeri 10y agoYou have to remember thus is a first gen product. Early ssd's were abysmal.
- tw04 10y agoNo, they really weren't. Early CHEAP SSDs from the likes of OCZ were horrible. I STILL have the first Intel SSD I bought - 80GB. It was awesome then and it's still awesome now. It's probably half the speed of modern SSDs, but even then it was several orders of magnitude better than any spinning rust that came before it. The first gen SLC - from the likes of STEC were as fast if not faster than anything we have now, they were just ridiculously overpriced.
- m-j-fox 10y agoMy disused Thinkpad x200 still has her My SSD Rocks sticker. But her SSD has been recycled into the media nuc.
- runeks 10y agoThe limitation back then was the controller. Intel figured out how to do it properly before anyone else. I still have an 80 GB X25-M G2 as well (read latency 65 µs [1]). [1] http://techreport.com/review/17269/intel-second-generation-x25-m-solid-state-drive http://techreport.com/review/17269/intel-second-generation-x...
- fulafel 10y agoThe first SSDs were DRAM based and pretty fast for the time, see eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray_Y-MP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray_Y-MP. (SRAM, now used in CPU caches, was used for the whole main memory on that machine)