Kingston announces 'affordable' SSDNow V100 drives

By on November 9, 2010, 7:00 AM
Kingston has just announced the latest addition to its SSDNow V Series family of solid-state drives. Designed for mainstream consumers, the Kingston V100 SSD is available in 64, 128 and 256GB capacities, with all of them getting TRIM support and an optimized controller for high read and write performance of about 250MB and 230MB per second, respectively, on the larger models. The 64GB drive has the same read speed, but writes top at just 145MB/s.

The drives offer a 1.5Gbps or 3Gbps SATA interface and will be available as either standalone or in upgrade bundle kits, with the latter offering cloning software, SATA and power cables and either a 3.5-inch hard drive mounting bracket in the desktop bundle, or an external enclosure in the notebook package to use the replaced hard drive as additional storage. In terms of power consumption the new V100 SSDs will use up 6.4W during operation and 1.0W at idle. All three have a life expectancy of 1 million hours mean time before failure (MTBF) and come with a three-year warranty.


The 64GB, 128GB and 256GB versions will set you back $120, $225 and $490, respectively, while you'll need to shell out an additional $10 if you're purchasing the notebook or desktop bundles.




User Comments: 36

Got something to say? Post a comment
Guest said:

Thats still not affordable : O

jurrasstoil said:

I'd still prefer a Sandforce based SSD.

The Vertex 2 60GB is at like $130 right now and the 120GB model is at $230.

jurrasstoil said:

jurrasstoil said:

I'd still prefer a Sandforce based SSD.

The Vertex 2 60GB is at like $130 right now and the 120GB model is at $230.

Unfortunately i can't edit my comment, so:

They will use a JMicron JMF618 for the V100 series and the "notebook bundle" mentioned in the article includes an external 2.5" case for your old NB Harddrive.

Storagebox said:

kinda in the same price of other SSD not a big deal id rather pay 10-20$ more for something much faster

Ranger12 Ranger12 said:

"affordable" according to the manufacturer. For me affordable is largely dependent on the price/performance ratio.

Demons said:

Still out of my price range especially when you consider the cost of a standard hard drive. These don't really seem that much cheaper and if I am going to buy an SSD drive, I'll get one of the high-performing ones for a little more rather than an "affordable" lower performance one.

whiteandnerdy said:

those prices are about the same. no thanks. ill wait until all the prices come down a little more.

TeamworkGuy2 said:

Guest said:

Thats still not affordable : O

I agree. 256 GB for $490, that is a little high.

Although the read and write speeds on the two larger capacities are good (250 MB/s and 230 MB/s). I definitely can't afford to build a computer with one of those, it would eat half my budget... LOL

Hargert said:

That is not too bad, heck it was not too long ago that plater drives were at those prices. A couple of hundred bucks for a SSD for your system install is in the world of affordable.

bam13 said:

affordable is such a misleading word, isnĀ't it?

raventrickster said:

I think I'll stick with the crowd on this one. The *only* way I'd have any interest in an SSD was if I was building a really high end system, at which point I'd spend the extra to upgrade to a really high speed SSD. The only way I might be interested in this is if I was trying to eke out a little bit more battery life on a laptop at the expense of onboard storage.

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

A million hours is about 114 years. Why not make it last 10 years and make it 50% cheaper?

$225 for 128 GB is not affordable.

Currently the longest loading thing on my computer is Civ 5, which can probably take about 15 seconds to load up the menu, and about 15 seconds to load up a save game. Considering the hours that the game stays up after this boot time, its not a big deal.

Booting the computer cold does take a bit of time, but comes out of sleep in seconds, so I don't see too much of a performance difference there.

Yeah, a SSD would be *faster* but there is a lot more stuff that I'd rather spend 200 bucks on right now than a SSD.

I have a feeling that once the wow factor of buying a SSD wears off, I'd be stuck with having to constantly free up space on the drive, and in the long run probably won't feel that I got my money's worth.

Colonel Lance said:

As much as the price has fallen from when SSDs first were released these are still not down to the "affordable" rate. They will still be bought aplenty though I think, because there are a lot of enthusiasts who are willing to pay that much, but for the casual gamer it is far out of reach. I hope for the time when you can get a 256 GB SSD for maybe $100 or less.

taea00 said:

While I don't think this is "afforable" it does seem to be getting close. I'd probably just use a SSD to boot to the OS initially since SSD's are going to be much smaller than HDD for a competitive price, but hopefully the prices will come down quickly.

AbsolutGaloot said:

More affordable compared to previous iterations of the same item, but not compared to normal alternatives. It's a neat idea, but I'll stick with the stuff that's affordable compared to everything, not just earlier iterations of itself.

Guest said:

$96 for 64 GB is not affordable, but it would be ok,

$128 for 128 GB is affordable, and

$192 for 256 GB is very affordable and a just price.

limpangel limpangel said:

At least the price per gigabyte is under 2$.

I remember when a 30GB SSD was 1000$, now those where the days.

Frostback said:

I'm primarily looking for one for a bootable drive and that price is nowhere near affordable. Although Vilches' headline makes me wonder is the quotation around affordable are a comment on the press release or merely an actual quote from the press release.

peterbezemer said:

good to see this technology gets available for more and more people, I think within 5 years everyone will have a SSD...

sMILEY4ever said:

Lol. Not "affordable" enough.

helpra said:

i want one ssd for me. But prices still very high.

omega00 said:

hahaha.. I agree with a lot of the posters; still not affordable enough. Prices are definitely competitive with other products on the market right now, but I'm going to wait until next year when prices, hopefully, will fall to "affordable" prices.

blimp01 said:

i love how they quote affordable LOL these things will never be affordable!

jazboy said:

256 GB on $490.. I guess it will take another one year to make it affordable at least for me..

Puiu Puiu said:

i wonder how much the prices will drop in 2011-2012. 2010 is still not affordable for the average Joe.

klepto12 klepto12, TechSpot Paladin, said:

these drives are still high IMO but if we wait within the next 2 years we should see a nice drop in price and a small leap in capacity for a better end user experience.

DSparil said:

Too pricey at the moment. I'd give it a year or so more.

Expensive computer parts today turns to garbage in a year or so.

ET3D, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Guest said:

$96 for 64 GB is not affordable, but it would be ok,

$128 for 128 GB is affordable, and

$192 for 256 GB is very affordable and a just price.

You're confusing "affordable" with "good value for money". $96 is less than $192 and therefore more affordable.

I think I'll wait some more. 64GB is a reasonable (though borderline) size for a boot drive, so it may be worth buying a drive once it drops some more.

Leeky Leeky said:

I must be alone in thinking those prices are actually quite good. I wish I'd held off buying my SSD now, I could have had two of them for what I paid!

Hopefully I can get a SSD for my lappy soon.

fpsgamerJR62 said:

The price of an Intel 160 GB SSD at my favorite computer shop is equivalent to the price of a pair of Western Digital 2-Terabyte Caviar Black 7200 RPM HDDs. Do the math. SSDs can only be considered affordable in a sort of "bang for buck" manner if speed really matters and also relative to the size of your wallet.

grvalderrama said:

Kingston must be doing their market researching to some very wealthy people. They should include a glossary with the meaning of the words they are using xD

Guest said:

Today, there are more affordable hdtvs (plasma, lcd, led) than SSDs.

zogo said:

I don't see that much progress in the pricing or it's just me

Probably the drop off will go very very slowly :P

klepto12 klepto12, TechSpot Paladin, said:

The price of an Intel 160 GB SSD at my favorite computer shop is equivalent to the price of a pair of Western Digital 2-Terabyte Caviar Black 7200 RPM HDDs. Do the math. SSDs can only be considered affordable in a sort of "bang for buck" manner if speed really matters and also relative to the size of your wallet.

yes 2 of those HDDs would be nice but 1 ssd destroys it in every single benchmark i personally am building a nice rig in november and i will be putting a 120GB ssd in my rig but i have a nice 1TB WD as my backup drive for storage and such.

xcelofjkl said:

All (and I mean all) professional reviews of kingston drives have been less than bad. Kingston shouldn't even be mentioned amongst the other top SSD offerings.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.