Can I buy one? I have two arms and two legs to offer.

Damn. So fast! But, unless you're some kind of person that requires insane drive speeds (can't think of anything off the top of my head at the moment), is speeds like this really necessary for gamers? My 3-4 year old Samsung 840 Pro is doing me perfectly. It loads most games in 10~ seconds. Windows loads in 3 seconds. Programs and software run near instantaneous without any delay or hitching.

The image shown for comparison is bull****. So why in the first picture show me a graph with 284 mb/s, while in the first few second the ssd was driving with what ???? 3500 mb / s. Don't tell that already had 284 mb/s, but the graph is in error. https://s9.postimg.org/6ui8o9nej/untitled-4.png

Can I buy one? I have two arms and two legs to offer.

It's Intel we are talking about. Better offer one of your kidneys as well and some marrow just to be sure.

The image shown for comparison is bull****. So why in the first picture show me a graph with 284 mb/s, while in the first few second the ssd was driving with what ???? 3500 mb / s. Don't tell that already had 284 mb/s, but the graph is in error.

Nah. It's the sort of ram buffer/cache many SSD suites offers. As for why the speed drops to 285MB/s, I reckon Intel purposefully took some cheap TLC SSD for this comparison, so it will show slower write speeds than SATA3 grants. But then again, despite what I said up there, perhaps this means Intel won't overcharge if they have the guts to compare it to an affordable mainstream SSD?

The image shown for comparison is bull****. So why in the first picture show me a graph with 284 mb/s, while in the first few second the ssd was driving with what ???? 3500 mb / s. Don't tell that already had 284 mb/s, but the graph is in error. https://s9.postimg.org/6ui8o9nej/untitled-4.png

they say it was the cache.

The image shown for comparison is bull****. So why in the first picture show me a graph with 284 mb/s, while in the first few second the ssd was driving with what ???? 3500 mb / s. Don't tell that already had 284 mb/s, but the graph is in error. https://s9.postimg.org/6ui8o9nej/untitled-4.png

No the graph is not in error. They however did deliberately cherry pick some sort of value SSD solution for comparison, likely TLC / Toggle Nand based. Writes start out amazingly fast and then drop. If you have read recent our value SSD reviews here at Guru3D.com you would have noticed very similar behavior. Once caches and the small SLC bugger can't keep up, that's the performance deficit the TLC SSD will run into (for writes). http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/ocz_trion_150_240_gb_ssd_review,10.html http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/plextor_m7v_512gb_ssd_and_m_2_ssd_review,11.html

No the graph is not in error. They however did deliberately cherry pick some sort of value SSD solution for comparison, likely TLC / Toggle Nand based. Writes start out amazingly fast and then drop. If you have read recent our value SSD reviews here at Guru3D.com you would have noticed very similar behavior. Once caches can't keep up, that's the performance deficit the TLC SSD will run into (for writes). http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/ocz_trion_150_240_gb_ssd_review,10.html http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/plextor_m7v_512gb_ssd_and_m_2_ssd_review,11.html

Also keep in mind that this "XPoint" memory is just Phase-Change Memory (PCM), and the "crossbar" design they are touting only provides marginal benefits to the overall design and performance of PCM SSDs. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/04/memory_and_storage_boundary_changes/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/29/xpoint_examination/

i am curious about their claim 1000x more durable than NAND after last google report about SSD my concern about SSD durability/reliability no longer based how it will last rewrite ... but the uncorrected errors - nand chip itself as based google report, 20~63% drives experience at least on uncorrectable error in first 4 years 30~80% drives develop one bad block, and 2~7% develop at least one bad chip during first 4years indeed for OS-cache usage is okay... but until they can solve how to make it more durable ssd cant be safely used for long-time data archival purpose now if intel means it can be rewrited 1000x more than current NAND, then it still means nothing to me

Damn. So fast! But, unless you're some kind of person that requires insane drive speeds (can't think of anything off the top of my head at the moment), is speeds like this really necessary for gamers? My 3-4 year old Samsung 840 Pro is doing me perfectly. It loads most games in 10~ seconds. Windows loads in 3 seconds. Programs and software run near instantaneous without any delay or hitching.

No, but its needed for bigdata and other things 🙂