Considering an SSD - first time user

W

Webberson

Weaksauce
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
112
I am considering a 128GB SSD, but have a few questions:
I know there are some new versions coming, but I would like to buy in the next few days. Besides, I would like proven technology for a first time user. BTW, I have a Win7-64 system with 12GB of memory.

I am looking at Intel X25M versus Crucial C300. The Crucial has faster numbers, but I know they may not mean all that much. The Intel seems to have better reliability and is a bit cheaper at the moment.

Newegg has two C300's listed. What is the difference? The product codes are the same except for the last few digits. One is 1G1CCA and the other is 1G1.

Which one is better and what is the difference between the two Crucials? By better, I mean faster and also more reliable?
 
Can't go wrong with the Intel. Pretty much as fast in real-world use, and rock solid reliability (although the Crucials seem to be pretty reliable also, so no knock on them). If you can wait another week or two, there should be some new models coming out (Intel next week, reportedly) which should offer better performance or lower prices.
 
Webberson said:
Newegg has two C300's listed. What is the difference? The product codes are the same except for the last few digits. One is 1G1CCA and the other is 1G1.

Which one is better and what is the difference between the two Crucials? By better, I mean faster and also more reliable?
Click to expand...

I think the difference between the two is form factor. One is 1.8" wide and the other 2.5". I haven't looked at it myself, but that is usually the case.
 
The new Intel SSD's coming out very soon would definitely be worth waiting for. The X25M or C300 are still both awesome drives however.
 
It is the same SSD. One of the kits comes with a USB to SATA adapter, one does not.
 
Jesse B said:
The new Intel SSD's coming out very soon would definitely be worth waiting for. The X25M or C300 are still both awesome drives however.
Click to expand...

The "new" midrange Intel SSDs (320 seres) use the same controller as the G2, have slower and less durable NAND, and very high price/GB relative to their competition... not really something I'd consider worth the wait.

http://www.nordichardware.com/news/...d-ssd-controller-and-varying-performance.html

Plus things don't bode well with the news that Intel might be stepping out of the game for controller development (at least for their higher end 5xx series SSDs, as they are considering Sandforce controllers):

http://thessdreview.com/Forums/intel/387.htm
 
sgogeta4 said:
Plus things don't bode well with the news that Intel might be stepping out of the game for controller development (at least for their higher end 5xx series SSDs, as they are considering Sandforce controllers):
Click to expand...

Anyone who believes any of the BS from that article about Intel using a Sandforce controller on their 320 series of SSDs, with absolutely no credible evidence presented, is exceedingly naive. Either the author of the article has no clue what he is talking about, or he has some inside source (probably of dubious credibility) but he is too bad a journalist to even mention that he has a confidential source. Either way, the article is terrible.

As for the performance of the Intel 320 series SSDs, they are not meant to be top performers. They are meant to be good enough performers, with high reliability, and good prices. They also are supposed to be protected against data loss in the event of power loss. And the only reviews I have seen so far are of SSDs of dubious pedigree (where did they get them? are they representative of what Intel will ship?), and 80GB models. You cannot reasonably compare the performance of an 80GB model to the 240 GB Vertex 3 or the 256 GB C400. I'd wait for a review of the 300GB Intel 320, from a credible review site, before I made any comparisons with the performance we have seen for the Vertex 3 or the C400.
 
john4200 said:
Anyone who believes any of the BS from that article about Intel using a Sandforce controller on their 320 series of SSDs, with absolutely no credible evidence presented, is exceedingly naive. Either the author of the article has no clue what he is talking about, or he has some inside source (probably of dubious credibility) but he is too bad a journalist to even mention that he has a confidential source. Either way, the article is terrible.
Click to expand...

Well, he was talking about the 5 series, not the 3 series, and they are using Marvell controllers on the 5 series. At least according to this article, which includes a picture of said controller:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/20594
 
Forceman said:
Well, he was talking about the 5 series, not the 3 series, and they are using Marvell controllers on the 5 series. At least according to this article, which includes a picture of said controller:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/20594
Click to expand...

Nope, he is "flamenko" on xtremesystems, and he has posted there that he thought it meant the 320 series (of course, he was absurdly late in even knowing about the 320 series).

Anyway, the 510 series does NOT use a Sandforce controller, so even if he did mean the 510 series, he was pathetically wrong.
 
I have no reservations recommending the X25-M G2, C300, and Intel 510 (own all of them). There also seems to be a trickle of Crucial M4 (C300 replacement) drives through superbiiz but I wouldn't trust them as a reliable source getting the drives just yet. I was in the same predicament earlier this week and went with the 510 after superbiiz called me to let me know the M4drives were delayed, although the C300 was a serious consideration too given the price/performance.

Heck, even a non-OCZ Sandforce drive (I have a Corsair F120 also) can be a good option if the price is right.
 
Webberson ---

You might have missed my post on another Crucial 300 thread.

I said that I upgraded to a SSD, to more memory, and a faster CPU. For my usage there was no measurable improvement.

A SSD is an advantage for very few applications.
 
Instead of just saying you found no improvement, it would be more useful if you posted what sort of usage you used where you found no measureable improvement. What benchmarks did you run? Context is important, especially when you don't detail which applications you didn't gain any benefit from and then conclude that a SSD is only useful for very few applications.

In my experience, just the improvement in general OS responsiveness was worth the price alone.
 
GeorgeHR said:
Webberson ---

You might have missed my post on another Crucial 300 thread.

I said that I upgraded to a SSD, to more memory, and a faster CPU. For my usage there was no measurable improvement.

A SSD is an advantage for very few applications.
Click to expand...

LOL

and SSD is an advantage for any applications and program running on it for pure raw loading speed, period, everything installed on the SSD gets a speed boost, period, there is no debating that.

Now, once the program is a loaded that is another story all together.
 
MrGuvernment said:
LOL

and SSD is an advantage for any applications and program running on it for pure raw loading speed, period, everything installed on the SSD gets a speed boost, period, there is no debating that.

Now, once the program is a loaded that is another story all together.
Click to expand...

But it is a matter of scale. Some applications and games will show noticeable improvements, but many will not, simply because the size and amount of files they load is small enough not to matter. 50% improvement on a 10 second load time is significant, 50% improvement on a 1 second load time is not. So the question becomes, is the increase worth the money, and that depends on what you are going to be using it for.

As you said, once the game level is loaded, there isn't much improvement to be gained.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top