Intel 520 'Cherryville' Series 240GB SSD

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Legit Reviews has taken the new Intel 520 'Cherryville' Series 240GB SSD around the block a few times to see what it is made of. Overall this is a very positive review, here's a quote to get you started:

Intel has been one of the mainstays of the SSD world and are one of the most trusted names and respected leaders in the computer industry. Their groundbreaking X25-M SSDs were the gold standard for which all other drives were judged for quite some time. That said, the SandForce SF-2281 controller has been out for close to a year now and featured in drives from just about every SSD manufacturer - so why is Intel just now releasing their SF-2281 SSD, code named Cherryville? In one word, firmware.
Click to expand...
 
Their SSDs were so damn expensive and/or too slow. Frankly, it's time they went the SF route and offered something that's worth buying. Still wonder if the retailers will price them at points where they compete with other SF-based drives. If it's another case of $100 for an Intel logo then what's the point.
 
pjkenned said:
SandForce = LSI. Remember, LSI is an Intel partner.
Click to expand...

The main thing is it's Intel firmware and Intel NAND, on an Intel designed board, with Intel handling quality control. You're getting a ton of R&D and testing along with the drive, and so far as I know it's the only SF-2281 based drive available with a 5 year warranty. All others top out at 3 years. In fact, so far as I know outside of Intel only Plextor (and in some very limited cases Patriot and OCZ, though the norm there is 2-3 years) is offering a 5 year warranty on SSDs, and those are all non-Sandforce based drives.
 
extide said:
Finally a 2nd gen SF drive that's actually worth buying!
Click to expand...

Eh, why bother when you can pick up a Plextor M3 / Crucial M4 or similar Marvell based drive that'll perform very similarly in real world applications and is proven reliable at this point for 25-33% less? I'm all for reliability, but I don't understand why people are willing to pay the Intel / Samsung markup.

Not saying it's a bad drive, and for those with huge budgets it's certainly on the short list, but I got a pair of 128GB Plextor M3s for $310 shipped, $290 AR a week or so ago, and such deals aren't unheard of. It's looking like the Intel 520 in a similar capacity (I'll call 240GB comparable to 256GB for our purposes here) would run $500+ at 1000 unit prices, likely closer to $550+ at retail. To be fair, a pair of 120GB 520s would be $460 ($230 x 2) at 1000 unit prices, but that's still going to be $500+ at retail. That's nearly 2x what I paid with similar warranty and similar performance -- the Plextors are also 5 year warranty drives, and Plextor isn't likely to go anywhere.
 
Last edited:
silent-circuit said:
The main thing is it's Intel firmware and Intel NAND, on an Intel designed board, with Intel handling quality control. You're getting a ton of R&D and testing along with the drive, and so far as I know it's the only SF-2281 based drive available with a 5 year warranty. All others top out at 3 years. In fact, so far as I know outside of Intel only Plextor (and in some very limited cases Patriot and OCZ, though the norm there is 2-3 years) is offering a 5 year warranty on SSDs, and those are all non-Sandforce based drives.
Click to expand...

Intel has had it's fair share of fails in the last few years. They do not exhibit the same quality control as they used to have.

Lets not forget the sandy bridge 6 series motherboard recall and SSD problems.

I would feel more comfortable buying a sandforce drive with the largest user base, in this case it would most likely be OCZ.
 
While you're right in that Intel has had its problems recently, including SSD issues as well, this AT article is still very worthy of a read. It seems Intel has already ironed out an existing bug in SF-2281 drives by releasing their own firmware.

They are still too damn expensive. Unless they can offer their drives for Marvell-controller prices, it's just not worth it. If the issues Intel does manage to fix do trickle down to the other manufacturers then it's a great sign. Though if these drives were to be priced between OCZ/Corsair/etc SF-based drives and their Marvell counterparts, they would certainly have quite a win on their hands.

The price is going to matter and that's going to be up to the retailers to determine, If they can slot them in between other SF-2281 and Marvell then they'd definitely be worthy of their asking price. Any higher than a Crucial/Plextor/Samsung alternative and they are yet again just going to be skipped over.
 
pelo said:
They are still too damn expensive. Unless they can offer their drives for Marvell-controller prices, it's just not worth it. If the issues Intel does manage to fix do trickle down to the other manufacturers then it's a great sign. .
Click to expand...


Anandtech's article pointed out Intel's firmware is exclusive. Other details they have been unable to get as both sides are not talking. I'm very pessimistic of Intel letting any of the issues they fixed during their own year long validation be used on anyone else's drive.



I'm primarily looking for larger SSD's for my MBP13 (320 160GB, want something bigger). Intel's drives have had their issues however they have been rock solid for me. Otherwise, my choice for SATA 3 drives will be between Crucial's M4 r Samsung's 830 series.

The SF controllers still have issues and on the MBP's they've been trouble and are one of the ones to avoid. (Though I've yet to read about anyone having issues with OWC's drives which are SF based as well.)

I don't buy the "because a larger amount of people have X controller it will be more reliable" line either to the poster who said that.

F**K Apple's SSD pricing on SSDs >= 256 though. If I get another MBP I will probably pay premium for Apple's validated drives. At this point with Intel's latest move my options are smaller and the headache may make it worth it. (After a few gut blending scotches....)
 
Last edited:
I love how everyone says don't buy a sandforce drive for reliability; Yet the M4 itself just had a huge problem crop up less then a month ago that was only just fixed a couple weeks back.
 
Mchart said:
I love how everyone says don't buy a sandforce drive for reliability; Yet the M4 itself just had a huge problem crop up less then a month ago that was only just fixed a couple weeks back.
Click to expand...

That "huge problem" didn't result in data loss, so really, it wasn't so "huge" was it?
 
Mchart said:
I love how everyone says don't buy a sandforce drive for reliability; Yet the M4 itself just had a huge problem crop up less then a month ago that was only just fixed a couple weeks back.
Click to expand...

Expecting no problems isn't reasonable really - you will just end up blacklisting *everything*.

What's more telling is

*what's the impact of the problem (data loss)?
*what's the timeline to resolution (problem discovered, fix, how involved was the fix, etc)
*how often there are problems.

I think intel and crucial still look pretty good - intel is still probably slightly ahead but I feel comfortable with both.
 
silent-circuit said:
That "huge problem" didn't result in data loss, so really, it wasn't so "huge" was it?
Click to expand...

Plus it was fixed before it affected almost anyone - how many people have 5000+ hours on the relatively new M4? Like 100?

And yes, I realize it is probably more than 100, that was hyperbole for the purposes of humor.
 
silent-circuit said:
That "huge problem" didn't result in data loss, so really, it wasn't so "huge" was it?
Click to expand...

True... but the SF-2281 problems weren't really any different than the m4: BSODs.

ChrisBenn said:
Expecting no problems isn't reasonable really - you will just end up blacklisting *everything*.

What's more telling is

*what's the impact of the problem (data loss)?
*what's the timeline to resolution (problem discovered, fix, how involved was the fix, etc)
*how often there are problems.

I think intel and crucial still look pretty good - intel is still probably slightly ahead but I feel comfortable with both.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But Intel's problem (w/ the 320) wasn't with BSODs, but actual data loss. The turnaround time for the fix was somewhat slow and the issue seemed to be prevalent enough to be considered serious. Crucial's problem involved every m4 ever shipped. SF problems were on select chipsets under specific conditions. This also explains the difference in turn-around times on the fixes.

I dunno... I just feel Intel and Crucial seem to get a general "pass" even though you're taking a risk with any drive you get... SSD or HDD or whatever.
 
I am going to presume that "Cherryville" is a city/lake/river/etc following the usual code naming convention that Intel uses? Or is it like the name of a town full of virgins or something? LOL
 
OK quick help time...

Samsung 256GB 830 VS Intel 240GB 520...

I have a the Samsung on the way, but I can refuse and spend more on the Intel. The Samsung is $340, the Intel is $500. I like Intel more but unsure if that's too big a difference for what u get. I think the 520 is faster with a better warranty and better company, but both are good... Any thoughts?

Then there is the Sandforce vs Samsungs controller thing... I dunno, but these are the only two I'm even considering btw, help!
 
so, i am a total noob when it comes to SSD's...is there a good noob guide out? short and to the point?

reading this intel ssd review doesn't make me want to run out and give up my awesome and reliable HD that I have now..
 
SylarPowers said:
OK quick help time...

Samsung 256GB 830 VS Intel 240GB 520...

I have a the Samsung on the way, but I can refuse and spend more on the Intel. The Samsung is $340, the Intel is $500. I like Intel more but unsure if that's too big a difference for what u get. I think the 520 is faster with a better warranty and better company, but both are good... Any thoughts?

Then there is the Sandforce vs Samsungs controller thing... I dunno, but these are the only two I'm even considering btw, help!
Click to expand...

The Intel drive is way too expensive. Great warranty or not, you're essentially spending money for an Intel logo yet again.

Buy the Samsung. It's a fantastic drive and that's a great price. If the two drives were comparable price then it would be a tougher choice, but considering the current price tags (I just checked newegg), I'd get the Samsung 830 without a doubt.
 
Price kills it. Would be good if similar price to competition.
 
silent-circuit said:
Eh, why bother when you can pick up a Plextor M3 / Crucial M4 or similar Marvell based drive that'll perform very similarly in real world applications and is proven reliable at this point for 25-33% less? I'm all for reliability, but I don't understand why people are willing to pay the Intel / Samsung markup.
Click to expand...

Because I'd rather pay for the Intel reliability.

silent-circuit said:
The main thing is it's Intel firmware and Intel NAND, on an Intel designed board, with Intel handling quality control.
Click to expand...

You said it yourself, actually.

I've read that Intel's drives are some of the most reliable, hands down. Even so, I'm not afraid to admit that I'm rocking two 160GB Intel 320 drives mainly due to a major discount that I found on eBay.

I had to upgrade the firmware on both drives and it was absolutely painless. Been having trouble-free performance ever since. Don't think I even did a TRIM yet.
 
The Marvell based drives have proven very reliable and quite fast, so why pay 2x as much for Intel when you can get that elsewhere for far less? I was making the comparison between the 520 and other SF based drives... but the truth is I'd rather have a non-SF based drive with a solid warranty (like the Crucial M4 or Plextor M3) than worry about the SF controller, even with Intel everything behind it.
 
Well, this part of the article caught my attention, and pretty much sums up what I want in an SSD or hard drive in general.

For the nervous types, all drives include a hefty 5-year warranty and Intel estimates a 1.2M hours of MTBF if writing 20GB worth of data a day and 2.5M hours MTBF for those writing 10GB/day.
Click to expand...

That translates to ~137 and ~274 years, respectively. Arguably overkill, but it proves a point.

Between you and me, I would never pay sticker price for one of these ;).
 
silent-circuit said:
The Marvell based drives have proven very reliable and quite fast, so why pay 2x as much for Intel when you can get that elsewhere for far less? I was making the comparison between the 520 and other SF based drives... but the truth is I'd rather have a non-SF based drive with a solid warranty (like the Crucial M4 or Plextor M3) than worry about the SF controller, even with Intel everything behind it.
Click to expand...

I can't believe that Intel thinks they can sell any kind of quantites of these with that pricing. It is almost 50% more expensive than the almost as fast M4 and possibly slightly faster 830. I appreciate the Intel brand as much as the next guy, but that's getting carried away.
 
fausto412 said:
so, i am a total noob when it comes to SSD's...is there a good noob guide out? short and to the point?

reading this intel ssd review doesn't make me want to run out and give up my awesome and reliable HD that I have now..
Click to expand...

You'd have to experience it yourself to really appreciate why you'd want an SSD.

Things are such an order of magnitude faster in some cases you'd wonder how you ever lived without it.

Find some benches for an SSD, like the M4 models, then run whatever benchmark they ran on it on your HD and notice the difference.

There is nothing wrong with that Intel SSD other than the price tag, which will hopefully drop some over time. Granted, for some, the higher price reflects the service/support Intel is expected to provide if and when something goes wrong. Peace of mind if you will.

If I were going to buy one atm, I'd get an M4 of either 128 or 256GB in size. Assuming I had a job that is.
 
I'm still on the fence but I'm starting to jones for the Intel more than the Samsung now.
 
Last edited:
If the competition was just OCZ or such, I could see some justification for a high premium (paying 240gb drive prices for a180gb drive for example is a bit much) ...BUT Samsung's new competing drives perform just as good, are priced close to the rest of the market, and the company's past drives had a relatively solid reliability record so far.

Intel needs to compete with Samsung's recent offerings, and neither performance or reliability issues differentiate the two product lines at this point, so prices have to come down before Samsung eats their market share.
 
Wierdo said:
If the competition was just OCZ or such, I could see some justification for a high premium (paying 240gb drive prices for a180gb drive for example is a bit much) ...BUT Samsung's new competing drives perform just as good, are priced close to the rest of the market, and the company's past drives had a relatively solid reliability record so far.

Intel needs to compete with Samsung's recent offerings, and neither performance or reliability issues differentiate the two product lines at this point, so prices have to come down before Samsung eats their market share.
Click to expand...

You can throw Crucial, Plextor and even Corsair's Performance Pro series with the Marvell controller in that boat too. If you're paying that much money you might as well get a more expensive Marvell controller, like the same one Intel used for the 510 Elm Crest series SSDs...

The prices seem to be hovering around Intel's MSRP, but when you consider that the only thing differentiating them is their firmware, NAND and warranty, the price tag is way too inflated. Intel too has a track record of screwing up with the 8mb bug, they use the same Marvell or SF controller as other drives and even share Intel NAND (which isn't all that amazing) they make for other drives as well. Throw Plextor in with their 5 year warranty AND far lower pricetag and there's absolutely no reason to pay for an Intel SSD at all.

SSDs do tend to start out very high in price as soon as they're released so there's hope for these yet. Look at the OCZ's new in-house Indilinx Octane drives that have only just started coming down in price yet are still too high to be considered a good buy. Though with the Intel logo you never know. The 320 3GB/s drives are still as or more expensive than their 6GB/s competition for no reason whatsoever.
 
This pretty much sums it up, compare the Intel 520 to the Samsung 830 series:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/22415/12

Cost per GB at 240/256GB for example:
Samsung 256GB: $1.41
Intel 240GB: $2.12

Overall performance:
Samsung: 894%
Intel: 881%

Performance is there, Intel is not competing on price at all though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top