Intel SSD price cuts are official

The rumor mill expected Intel to slash SSD prices in August, and it was incorrect. Turns out Intel went ahead and announced the cuts on its Chip Shot blog yesterday. The company didn’t provide a list of drives and their updated prices, but it confirmed that it’s "lowered suggested reseller pricing" on "a number" of drives, including 320, 330, and 520 Series SSDs.

Sure enough, the prices VR-Zone quoted last week seem to be largely in effect at Newegg. 180GB, 120GB, and 60GB variants of the 330 Series SSD are down to $159.99, $109.99, and $69.99, respectively. (VR-Zone predicted cuts to $154, $104, and $69, numbers which I expect might apply to bulk orders.)

The same goes for the SandForce-powered 520 Series. I see Newegg charges $104.99 for the 60GB model, $149.99 for 120GB, $209.99 for 180GB, $269.99 for 240GB, and $519.99 for 480GB. Bare, "OEM" versions of those same SSDs are available at slightly lower prices. However, from what I can tell, Intel doesn’t cover them under its normal warranty. Retail-boxed drives, on the other hand, are covered for five years directly by Intel.

That’s not all. Along with the cuts, Intel has beefed up the 330 series with the addition of a new 240GB model. The drive seems to have the same specs as its lower-capacity siblings: 25-nm multi-level-cell NAND flash, a peak read speed of 500MB/s, a peak write speed of 450MB/s, a 2.5" form factor with a 9.5-mm thickness, and a five-year warranty. I’m not seeing the drive listed at Newegg or Amazon just yet, though.

Comments closed
    • WillBach
    • 7 years ago

    And now the Intel 330 (60 GB) is $64.99 at [url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167120<]the egg[/url<]. That's another $5 off. Edit: also, free shipping.

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    I haven’t jumped on the SSD bandwagon just yet, but every time there’s a price cut by someone selling SSDs I feel myself inching closer to a purchase.

    • Bensam123
    • 7 years ago

    Not sure why anyone would want to buy a 330 with the 520s out. The competition offers similar products based on the same controller the 520 uses with similar specs, for less money. The 330 is simply outclassed.

      • indeego
      • 7 years ago

      Uh, the 330 is $40 cheaper across the series, but isn’t “outclassed” performance wise to the same extent. You would get a better value getting the 330 series.

        • Bensam123
        • 7 years ago

        Better value compared to what? TR actually did benchmarks on this stuff.

        [url<]https://techreport.com/articles.x/22415/12[/url<]

          • indeego
          • 7 years ago

          OK You do have a point…

          520 is ~ 77.49% “better” in TR benchmark 1.0.
          520 is ~ 76.19% pricier.

          I guess you win this argument…by ~1.3%

          If you have a given pricepoint the 330 is probably fine, I wouldn’t say “outclassed” though…

            • MadManOriginal
            • 7 years ago

            TR hasn’t even tested the 330 series so I am confused as to how you guys are using TR benchmarks to argue 330 vs 520.

            • Bensam123
            • 7 years ago

            That is correct. I was comparing them to the 320s. Apparently the 330 performs awfully similar to the 520s.

            That actually makes this a decent alternative to other drives on the market looking at price/performance.

            • indeego
            • 7 years ago

            Man. Yeah. I took his TR link and just assumed 320/330. Double doh!

        • Duck
        • 7 years ago

        What retard downvoted you for that??

        Anyway, you are right. The 520 uses top tier NAND and the 330 uses cheaper binned stuff with lower write endurance. See my comment at the bottom of the page (520 is rated for 5 years, 330 is rated for 3 years)…

    • d0g_p00p
    • 7 years ago

    The 240GB is the sweet spot. My main box is almost all SSD’s now. However I think I’ll be keeping the 1TB spinner around for a long time for bulk storage that does not warrant a SSD.

    I’ll be very happy in a few years when (hopefully) 1TB SSD’s are around the $300 mark. THEN I can really go all solid state storage in my box.

      • BIF
      • 7 years ago

      I am looking forward to this too, when I can relegate my spinners to a NAS server doing backup duty in the spare bedroom.

    • ludi
    • 7 years ago

    Intel SSD products for less than $1/GB.

    The future is here.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 7 years ago

      When will then be now? Soon!

      • tootercomputer
      • 7 years ago

      I remember clearly when PATA drives reached $1/GB and how remarkable that seemed. It was at the time (early 2000s). For the first PC I assembled in 1990, I pad $200 for a 40Mg hdd, and that was reasonable at the time. The change in storage (and RAM) pricing still just amazes me.

    • Anarchist
    • 7 years ago

    by this time next year I expect 1TB SSD to cost around $300.

      • A_Pickle
      • 7 years ago

      Based on…?

        • Farting Bob
        • 7 years ago

        Wishes.

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 7 years ago

          Aren’t memristors supposed to come out soon and vastly increase density?

            • indeego
            • 7 years ago

            When has anything new been priced low initially?

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            It could be priced high and still have lower cost per gig than current technology.

        • Anarchist
        • 7 years ago

        changing technology … next year we’ll see increase in number of bits stored per cell which should increase average capacity of drive. Furthermore decrease in transistor size along with increase in wafer size will decrease the manufacturing cost. In addition maturing technology will also drive down the cost. These and other factors will likely cut in half the price of SSD. Since we are already seeing 400GB drive near $300 I say 1TB drive will see $300 price point at lower end next year.

      • BIF
      • 7 years ago

      The speed at which price cuts are happening is definitely picking up.

      I don’t know how your comment warrants a downthumb at all, since it’s merely a prediction.

      Somebody should downthumb me for questioning the downthumbers.

      • ronch
      • 7 years ago

      By this time next year I expect 8-core AMD FX processors to be running at 6.0GHz with 7.0GHz turbo, eat 65w, and sell for just $120.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 7 years ago

    Well, I upgraded from a 120GB drive to a 180GB Intel 330 when I saw a deal for $120 after MIR. Looks like that price might be matched again soon, still happy with the purchase though.

    • kvndoom
    • 7 years ago

    Wow, when I build my next system, I might go pure SSD and just keep my external 1TB spinner for backups. I’m getting kind of excited to build a new box again!

    • Duck
    • 7 years ago

    Intel 330 is rated for 3 years (20GB per day for 3 years IIRC) and has a 3 year warranty. The 520 is 5 years for both.

    • l33t-g4m3r
    • 7 years ago

    If Intel is using sandforce, why does OCZ have such a bad rap? Cheap nand?

      • MadManOriginal
      • 7 years ago

      I believe they got exclusive deals for new Sandforce controllers when they were first released. That obviously put them first in line for backlash over Sandforce firmware issues. They weren’t any worse than other companies as far as those issues went because it was Sandforce that needed to provide the fix, they are just very visible in the enthusiast realm.

      Then some people got upset when OCZ support on their forums seemed to be suggesting all sorts of fixes. I don’t know what the other SSD retailers were doing during that time though so it seemed a little bit like ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’.

        • l33t-g4m3r
        • 7 years ago

        Does intel produce their own memory though? I’ve heard rumors that OCZ was using cheap stuff, but perhaps that’s all that was. I’d like to know more about any issues before purchasing a SSD. It seems to be getting time to buy one, now that prices have dropped and bugs have been worked out.

        Sandforce with syncronous memory seems to be the best bang for the buck.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 7 years ago

          NAND gets binned by the manufacturer into grades, so yes it is possible OCZ is/was using lower grade NAND. But there are only a few grades plus you can’t put the cheapest possible thumb drive NAND into SSDs – the decent controllers are only able to work with certain types of chips. And there are only so many NAND manufacturers and only so much NAND produced so ultimately there is some floor.

          Intel, through the IMFT joint venture with Micron, is able to select and use top grade NAND in their SSDs, they’ve stated that so there is something to Intel SSDs being ‘better’ or at least top-grade. I imagine Samsung does the same thing.

      • dmjifn
      • 7 years ago

      I’ve wondered that myself, except I was comparing Intel to Corsair. Corsair doesn’t have a bad rep by any means but even “good” is still a drop from “impeccable” which they seemed to have when they just did RAM. Been wondering if Intel’s non-core, 3rd party-based products will start regressing to the mean.

      • Ifalna
      • 7 years ago

      Intel uses SF since the 520 series I believe. (I own one of those btw) It took them very long to implement the new firmware, which was designed by intel and may only be used by intel. The old/regular SF-Firmware did cause problems. Whether Intels Firmware is actually better or not, only time will tell, but so far it looks pretty good.

      • cegras
      • 7 years ago

      Intel developed their own firmware. It was during this process that they discovered sf could not do aes 256. Anandtech covers this.

        • l33t-g4m3r
        • 7 years ago

        Good info, but not completely accurate.

        [quote<]Based on these results I'd be willing to bet that Intel doesn't have source code access to the SF-2281 firmware otherwise it would've worked on a solution to this corner case. [/quote<] [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/5508/intel-ssd-520-review-cherryville-brings-reliability-to-sandforce/7[/url<] also link to aes 256, and I didn't read it being discovered in the firmware process, but ongoing quality control. [quote<]Although SandForce's SF-2281 controller has been shipping for well over a year at this point[/quote<] [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/5971/intel-discovers-sandforce-sf2281-controller-cant-do-aes256-encryption-offers-return-program[/url<]

          • cegras
          • 7 years ago

          As long as I pointed you to the correct source of info, I acknowledge my mistakes 🙂

      • ew
      • 7 years ago

      The difference is in the firmware and the testing. Intel tested their drives and fixed problems. OCZ didn’t test and had bugs and didn’t provide good customer service when people had problems.

      • Bensam123
      • 7 years ago

      The BSoD bug is going to stick to them exclusively for a long time. Early adopters don’t seem to recognize that they are that.

        • Airmantharp
        • 7 years ago

        The BSoD bug was round two. Vertex 2’s just died outright in droves before that, and having Vertex 3’s fail afterwards made the situation much worse.

          • Bensam123
          • 7 years ago

          I didn’t hear about OCZ having bad drives before the Sandforce bug. My friend owns a Agility and it still works fine.

            • Airmantharp
            • 7 years ago

            The original Vertex/Agility weren’t Sandforce- only the 2 and 3. The 4’s are Marvell and Indilinx.

    • yogibbear
    • 7 years ago

    $0.01/TB or go home :/

    The warranties themselves on these drives are worth quite a bit of coin me thinks.

      • kcarlile
      • 7 years ago

      1 cent per Terabyte? So the largest hard drive currently available would cost 4 cents? That seems a titch optimistic.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 7 years ago

        OK seriously you can’t see the hyperbole of humor here?

        or is it humor of hyperbole?

      • bcronce
      • 7 years ago

      Free/TB or go home!

        • chuckula
        • 7 years ago

        Free/TB? How dare you overcharge me like that!

        How about: You [b<]pay me[/b<] $5/TB to take it off your hands... and thank me for it too!

        • ludi
        • 7 years ago

        Free/Willy

      • BIF
      • 7 years ago

      I’m sure it’s just a calculated risk. How many go bad, how much does it cost to replace one? It’s just hardware + shipping (or maybe not even shipping). It’s probably a nit unless they make a lot of bad batches before QC catches them (or the phone starts ringing).

      “$0.01/TB or go home”

      That made me laugh and I don’t know why. Are you hoarding upthumbs today?

      • Bensam123
      • 7 years ago

      I thought the $/GB jokes were in poor taste, then I took an arrow to the knee.

        • Airmantharp
        • 7 years ago

        +1 for lol, even though I know I’ll get down-ranked with you.

          • Bensam123
          • 7 years ago

          At least we’re playing as the ship goes down.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 7 years ago

    It’s cool to see official prices drop below $1/gb. More expensive than sale prices, but Intel is widely regarded as the manufacturer of one of the most (if not *the* most) stable line of SSDs. My 320 series 120GB drive is still going strong.

      • flip-mode
      • 7 years ago

      Intel’s cuts will drive the rest down. All SSDs I’ve purchased (all for work) are still going strong – 3 or 4 OCZ drives, 2 Crucial drives, 3 Intel drives.

      • tanker27
      • 7 years ago

      I have a 40GB 320 and I haven’t had any trouble with it. With these prices I probably will go get the largest one I can find.

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        I guess I’m the unlucky one… i’ve had 40% of my intel ssd’s fail. Their customer service is good about exchanging them, though

          • ludi
          • 7 years ago

          Which models and how recently? Were any of those the 8MB bug?

          • Rectal Prolapse
          • 7 years ago

          Was it the 8 MB bug that got you Neely?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This