I'm not sure if you actually read that article you linked to about SATA III SSD benchmarks, because the article itself stated "the SATA 6G results did not impress us" so how you got that to mean "impressive" is somewhat beyond my comprehension.

My Samsung F1 1TB SATA II hard drive does 116Mbytes/sec read, which beats that SATA III SSD drive and cost me less than 75 quid. Not a very good ad for either SSDs or SATA III really is it?

Yes, the Intel SSD does have good performance, but a) it's not SATA III (yet) and b) it's very expensive indeed (well beyond any typical home consumer budget).

The Windows 7 benchmarks compare it with Vista, which we all know is crap. We can conclude that Win7 is better than crap but not by much.

We ought to be seeing comparisons with XP. The fact that we don't convinces me that Win7 < XP.

Seriously, every time I read a Vista vs Windows 7 comparison and compare the benchmarks, I'm surprised by the author's conclusion. Really, 5% is a glaring improvement? And that was on just one set of benchmarks. As far as I saw, except boot/sleep time, they look nearly identical to me. These sites like Toms Hardware must be getting some type of kickbacks for making such outlandish claims when the evidence in front of their face does not support them.

The people in the comments section that buy into the review are amazingly ignorant.

Major overhaul of an OS=RAGE
5% improvement(debatable) on that major overhaul=LOVE and PUPPIES.

morons

If File is over Megabyte in size you can get Over Rice Paper Curtain of 300 Mb/s transfer. In Normal Range of 512 byte files clips, expect 5 Mb/s actual transfer rate. Read 'Em & Weap. Something Tells Me Its Not Time For SSD Nor SATAIII. Especially since plug in SSD Cards that do pci-e can get theREADER across @ 10X any of Marvels' numbers with ease.

drashek

oooh, all these numbers are making me so desparate to own one! (despite the compulsory fast depreciation in value)

i'll just go and sell a vital organ to fund it..