• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Performance/stability of SSD controllers

I

InorganicMatter

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
15,461
Looking to upgrade my X25-M. I've been reading reviews and hunting around for info, but there's a myriad of firmware updates and outdated reviews that just ends up with jumbled information.

I have two Intel 510s in my workstation. They are great, but the system they are in only supports SATA-300, so I guess I'm losing a lot of performance.

From what I understand, there's two competing SSD controller makers, yes? SandForce is supposed to be much faster than Marvel, but I am finding mixed reviews about the stability. Supposedly there were BSODs and all that, but some say newer firmwares fix all that?

It's coming down between these 3 I think (unless anyone has a better idea):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167042
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233191
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227714

Should I just get another 510 for the house and call it a day? Or are the problems in the faster Corsair/OCZ fixed now? Fast is good but I really want rock-solid stability.
 
Look at the price of the 510 vs. the other two. That's generally why I avoid Intel personally.

The BSOD problems appear to be fixed on the SF drives... but I don't really know that they're *that* much faster than the others out there. Maybe in benchmarks, but whether it's really noticeable in typical use is up for debate.

If I had to choose between those three drives at those prices, I'd go with the Corsair Force GT just based on price alone.

I'm not sure that you'll see much of a performance improvement over the X25-M though.
 
If you want stablility, I'd avoid any of the Sandforce stuff out of sheer paranoia and stick with Intel.

Could also grab an M4 as those seem to be a very solid drive.

Unless you're doing tons of file copying or rebooting your machine 50 times a day, you likely won't notice the difference in speed in any of those in typical daily use tbh.

In your case, I'd get another Intel probably.
 
I believe both the Corsair Force GT and Vertex 3 are the same Sandforce using Synchronous memory.

Here are pretty much your options:
Sandforce using Synchronous Memory (Vertex 3, Corsair GT)
Sanforce using Asych Memory (Agility 3, Corsair Force)
Marvell (Crucial M4, Intel)
Samsung,
New Indllinux Series (OCZ Petrol and Octane)


The Crucial M4 has the longest clean reputation of being a solid drive, however, the Sandforce has the longest reputation of patches and fixes. IMO they are pretty much the same now. Always backup!
 
I play MMOs and raid with a 25-man guild, so I need stability above all else. (Those who have been "that guy" who caused a wipe because his PC BSOD'd know the feeling...)

With that criteria in mind, I guess it's between the Crucial M4 and the Intel 510. Is there any reason NOT to save $100 if they both use the same Marvell controller?

BTW I'm not looking to replace my X25-M. This drive will become my boot drive, and the X25-M will be getting my pagefile and some games that don't fit on my main drive.
 
I'm slightly confused, are you having issues with the 25's? Or just wanting the new one? The speed difference between the new ones and your 25's probably won't be that noticeable to be honest.
 
MissJ84 said:
Get the m4. Its exactly what you want for static programs, games, etc.
Click to expand...

I agree, I'd either get the M4 or even an Intel 320 (slower in benchmarks, but not so much in real world use). I wouldn't pay the premium for an Intel 510.
 
If this upgraded SSD is to go in to a PC with only SATA2 then this is all a waste of energy. The performance bump going from an X25-M to any of the SATA3 SSD's that have been discussed won't be all that noticeable. Worse yet if your current PC is running in IDE mode instead of AHCI (or RAID).

What motherboard (and SATA controller) are you using?
What OS are you using?
 
I'm kind of in the same boat as OP. I have an X25-M on a motherboard with no support SATA III and I'm running out of space.

Is there a controller card worth picking up if I'm looking to jump to a newer, SATA III based SSD? Or is the performance difference between X25-M on SATA II and a newer SSD on SATA III not worth worrying about?
 
You can just run the drive on a SATA II port, you're really not going to suffer significant performance loss in general usage. 300MB a second is still very fast for a boot drive on a desktop PC.
 
arkk said:
I'm kind of in the same boat as OP. I have an X25-M on a motherboard with no support SATA III and I'm running out of space.

Is there a controller card worth picking up if I'm looking to jump to a newer, SATA III based SSD? Or is the performance difference between X25-M on SATA II and a newer SSD on SATA III not worth worrying about?
Click to expand...

The performance difference isn't worth an extra controller card - unless you spend all your time moving large files around you'd never be able to tell.
 
Also, if you want to upgrade to SATA 6gbps, using an addon card will create stability issues with your SSD. You would want to replace the motherboard with a native sata 6gpbs powered by an intel ICHR.

Even on the x58's, SATA 6gbps from the onchip marvell controller have a lot of issues, and it's recommended to use the native intel SATA 3gpbs controller.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top