• 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.

Which SSD? - Does it Really Make a Difference?

R

RhoXS

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
67
My 80 GB Intel G2 SSD is down to only 27 GB free and I expect that to slowly whittle away with time. I am going to replace it with a 120 GB SSD as the price is about right (circa $230) and the additional 40 GB should easily last another few years. I use the SSD for the system and applications and a 750 GB HDD for data etc.

I am narrowed down to the following three drives:

OCZ Vertex 2
Corsair CSSD-F120
Intel X25-M

The Corsair and OCZ are somewhat faster, especially when writing, but all three seem to be quality drives.

However, in real world use, I perceive that any of the three will be indistinguishable from the others with respect to performance and long term reliability. I am simply going to clone my existing drive to the new one using EASEUS Disk copy.

I would be interested to hear others opinions before I spend $230.
 
Can you even find the X25-M for sale anymore? I was going to go for that one, too, just recently, thinking I could get it for a good price since it's pretty old now. I did a quick search but didn't see it for sale from any reputable source...

EDIT: ugh, never mind, just searched it again and amazon has it ... odd, I wonder what the hell I did last time?

EDIT 2: I like these pages that feature both the vertex 2 and the x-25M:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3812/the-ssd-diaries-crucials-realssd-c300/4
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3681/oczs-vertex-2-special-sauce-sf1200-reviewed/7
 
Last edited:
DaRuSsIaMaN said:
Can you even find the X25-M for sale anymore? I was going to go for that one, too, just recently, thinking I could get it for a good price since it's pretty old now. I did a quick search but didn't see it for sale from any reputable source...

EDIT: ugh, never mind, just searched it again and amazon has it ... odd, I wonder what the hell I did last time?

EDIT 2: I like these pages that feature both the vertex 2 and the x-25M:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3812/the-ssd-diaries-crucials-realssd-c300/4
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3681/oczs-vertex-2-special-sauce-sf1200-reviewed/7
Click to expand...

He has a G2 and those are pretty easy to find...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167031&cm_re=x25-m-_-20-167-031-_-Product
 
raid up your devices, or go with the Intel X25-M. you simply cannot put a price on reliability when it comes to your data. unfortunately the SF offerings do not give that. intel is king of reliability, and since you mention your upgrade should be good for a few years, this is the obvious choice.
 
If you can "whittle" that space away and be fine for a month or 2 you could always wait for the intel G3 drives to be released and see what advantages they have.
 
Thanks for all the good advice.

I do not keep important data on the SSD, only the system and applications. If it crashes, I will not lose any consequential data and the pain will be mostly limited to having to reinstall everything - not trivial but certainly recoverable. In any case, I clone this drive every few weeks so I always have a relatively recent plug & play backup (at least in the form of a HDD that can used or be re-cloned to a replacement SSD). In addition, the 80 GB Intel G2 I am replacing is destined for my wife's computer so it is not available for a RAID array. As a result, although I did briefly consider a RAID array, I am just going to replace it with a larger drive.

I do not want to wait for the G3 as I am sure a 120 GB version will be much more expensive than the $230 price point for the G2 or equivalent drives.

So, back to my original question; is there any real reason for chosing one of the three drives I referenced above the others or, as I suspect, all of them will provide about equivalent real world performance?
 
I had read that the Crucial C400 should be out this month... Seems unlikely at this point, but perhaps next month? (It's possible that what I read was just totally wrong, also.)

Other than that, C300 or Sandforce. I use Sandforce and love it.
 
In the Crucial 300 series drives the 128GB drives list better performance than the 64GB drives.

Of course, SATA III is better.
 
C300 isn't worth the extra cost imo. Those links I posted earlier show it in real-world-usage benchmarks. The c400 will not be out this month; it'll be in February if no delays occur.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4086/microns-realssd-c400-uses-25nm-nand-at-161gb-offers-415mbs-reads

RhoXS said:
So, back to my original question; is there any real reason for chosing one of the three drives I referenced above the others or, as I suspect, all of them will provide about equivalent real world performance?
Click to expand...

Aside from what I already linked, you could also compare all 3 (2 at a time side by side) with this bench database:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/SSD/65
Quite a handy compilation of results for many SSDs.
 
DaRuSsIaMaN said:
C300 isn't worth the extra cost imo. Those links I posted earlier show it in real-world-usage benchmarks. The c400 will not be out this month; it'll be in February if no delays occur.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4086/microns-realssd-c400-uses-25nm-nand-at-161gb-offers-415mbs-reads



Aside from what I already linked, you could also compare all 3 (2 at a time side by side) with this bench database:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/SSD/65
Quite a handy compilation of results for many SSDs.
Click to expand...
I think the original poster had it correct when he said "However, in real world use, I perceive that any of the three will be indistinguishable from the others with respect to performance and long term reliability."

No need for any benchmarks or opinions.
 
In defense of GeorgeHR, his observation is really correct. Perception is reality. If, realistically, the three drives will appear to perform similarly, then benchmarks serve no consequential purpose.
 
hmm well for the average user there is degradation and such. if you take the damn thing stragiht outta the box it might perform BEAUTIFULLY!
however, guys, these are ssd, and they perform much much differently when they reach steady-state performance levels. cmon guys...do some research before you bandy about such hogwash!

did any of you even consider the differences in write speeds? install some games and then tell me that there is no difference between the SSD's :) LOL
welcome to reality when you test the difference there.
 
Computurd said:
hmm well for the average user there is degradation and such. if you take the damn thing stragiht outta the box it might perform BEAUTIFULLY!
however, guys, these are ssd, and they perform much much differently when they reach steady-state performance levels. cmon guys...do some research before you bandy about such hogwash!

did any of you even consider the differences in write speeds? install some games and then tell me that there is no difference between the SSD's :) LOL
welcome to reality when you test the difference there.
Click to expand...

They're on a practically even playing field -- we aren't talking about POS first generation 4GB EeePC glorified USB flash drives here. We're talking about 2nd and 3rd generation hardware, fairly high end. So... you're wrong.
 
Well at least concerning the write speeds, Intel does lag substantially behind SandForce. So, probably a noticeable difference there.
 
I would wait for the next gen. Buying for the future in regards to SSD's would be like shooting yourself in the foot. Unless you desire more performance. By the time you fill up the rest of your drive, there will be much better, cheaper, & faster drives out.
 
Thanks for all the responses.

I am going to buy the Corsair Force CSSD-F120GB2-BRKT 120GB SSD. Although I do not expect it to be noticeably faster than the Intel drive, it does have faster specifications. So, all else being equal, I will default to the better spec.

I originally decided to go with the OCZ Vertex 2 soley because that seems to be the more popular unit. However, I then remembered how OCZ helped me with a failed OCZ power supply last spring. The power supply failed less than one month past the expiration of the warranty, based on the date on the Newegg purchase receipt. I called OCZ to see if they could provide any help and they said they could not for two reasons. First, I did not register it when I bought it so the Newegg purchase receipt did not matter. Second, the warranty actually started on the day it was manufactured, not the day it was purchased. In any case, I was a few weeks past the warranty no matter what date was considered so OCZ was perfectly in their rights to do nothing. Now, I am perfectly in my rights to use another vendor (Corsair). I have been very pleased with Corsair's products, their forum support here is excellent, and when you call Corsair's technical support, you get someone knowledgable in North America that speaks English as their native language.

Thanks again for the responses.
 
Well at least concerning the write speeds, Intel does lag substantially behind SandForce. So, probably a noticeable difference there.
Reply With Quote
Click to expand...

but at steady state it recovers faster than a SF, and you dont have to worry bout compression/incompressible data. heres a fun fact: x-25 is faster than a SF drive when it comes to incompressible data...and this is when they arent degraded :) the story gets much worse when you take degradation into account. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2010/10/12/crucial-realssd-c300-review-128gb/3
SF take forever to recover via GC.

so in real world, you will see a difference in about three months. once those SSD reach steady state you can tell especially when multitasking, writing, etc.
i know. i have both. :) and many other ssd as well.
 
Computurd said:
but at steady state it recovers faster than a SF, and you dont have to worry bout compression/incompressible data. heres a fun fact: x-25 is faster than a SF drive when it comes to incompressible data...and this is when they arent degraded :) the story gets much worse when you take degradation into account. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2010/10/12/crucial-realssd-c300-review-128gb/3
SF take forever to recover via GC.

so in real world, you will see a difference in about three months. once those SSD reach steady state you can tell especially when multitasking, writing, etc.
i know. i have both. :) and many other ssd as well.
Click to expand...

But for the money I still think the SF is a good upgrade over a HDD , Intels' are bit expensive and it seems SF's strategy is to compete with them on long-life-lreliability rather than speed?
 
, Intels' are bit expensive and it seems SF's strategy is to compete with them on long-life-lreliability rather than speed?
Click to expand...

Actually my friend you have it totally backwards. the Intels are the gold standard of reliability. the SF are trying to outperform them on speed. but tbh the 'fuzzy math' of compression/decompression and higher latency are not actually giving you faster speeds in the long run. throw in the fact that its GC c an take a long time to kick in and the picture gets even fuzzier.
of course, though. a SF is magnitudes of order better than an HDD. doesnt matter what ssd it is, its better than an HDD.
 
Intel SSD's are awesome, I've been using 3 since the original G1's came out. I suppose I should look at other ssd options when I need another drive, but one I'd never consider at all is a drive using compression. Just me maybe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top