Best SATA III SSD?

Next month I'm ordering a Clevo x7200 and intend on picking up 2 SSD's to run in RAID 0. I've done a bit of research but found pros/cons to each drive in reviews which keep me unsure.

Right now I'm considering the Crucial C400/M4 Series as the best choice for the top-of-the-line SSD to run my OS and most programs from. However, I'm looking for more experienced opinions than my own. Which drive to be released by end of April do you expect to be the absolute best multipurpose SSD? Best would mean in performance and reliability. The price isn't a factor in this decision.

Also, I found this link which suggests I could avoid losing TRIM in Raid 0, has anyone else investigated this? If I can't avoid losing TRIM then I won't do a RAID setup.

Thank you for any feedback you may provide!

 

First off, that link is simply wrong (no current driver supports TRIM under RAID - it may support TRIM to drives connected to a RAID port; but they can't be part of a RAID array for TRIM to work).

Second, with performance and reliability as your criteria - the Intel 510 is still ahead in that department (by far, I would say).

With only 4 seconds slower in real world use compared to the much vaunted V3 (with the 'insane' 4K R r/w's...) I would pick the Intel not only for reliability, but also for sustained and consistent performance that any SandForce based drive can only wish for.

The new C400 looks impressive and 'smokes' the Intel 510 in benchmarks - however, their track record of 'reliable' falls a little short of my requirements and essentially makes their nominally 'faster' product much less desirable to me.

Good luck.

 

If performance and reliability are key...

No one drive takes the top for both. The Vertex 3 will be the best performing hands down, but the reliability of it is very questionable, and it might not perform up to mark after time. The C400 performs very well also, but not as well in sequentials or random 4k read/write as the vertex 3, but it is a bit more reliable. The Intel 510 ssd of course comes with intel's legendary reliability, and has better sequential than the C400, but worse than vertex 3. However it also has pretty bad random 4k read/write, which are very important for general use/gaming. The Intel Gen 3 is also an option, but considering that its sequentials arent very good, and its random 4k read/write times are(according to early reviews) not much faster than the old g2, I would avoid it.

Essentially
Performance-Vertex 3, C400, Intel 510
Reliability-Intel 510, C400, Vertex 3

Also you will loose TRIM in RAID irregardless. I would just go with a SSD for OS and games/commonly used apps, then a big HDD for mass media storage.

 

I'd also include Samsung 470 for performance and low power consumption. Also, for randoms R/W, the C400 beats out the Vertex 3, so I wouldn't say the new Sandforce drives as being top performing and the Intel 510 hasn't been out long enough to really talk about reliability - especially since the SSD isn't made by them (it's the same hardware as the C300/400).

 

I haven't seen any real world performance comparisons between C400 and V3. Until then all I can do is guess.

Same goes for reliability. Some people assume Intel is most reliable but I haven't seen any conclusive evidence. The reliability of the 510 series is a big question mark.

 

They are all new models so reliability are all big question marks.

Drawing from past data, I would say my money would be on Intel better than Sandforce in the reliability department.

However, if reliability is on the top of the list, get the tried and true model that has been on the market for a long time.

SSD is SSD, very few people would feel the difference between 'last gen' vs 'this gen'. For those who know they need that extra speed, they know what risk they want to take.

 

What data?

 

The french site that has been mentioned. The various support forum of SF drives vs Intel's. newegg's user comments. I haven't seen one angry Intel users and definitely not repeated problem of the same sort across all brands using SF, that indicates software bugs.

They are not scentific but they do show a trend.

 

chimpanzee,

I agree that SSD is SSD... they all (up to now) seem very much like my HDD's.

They start out promising, level off and eventually give slower performance than the HDD's they were supposed to replace.

That's why I'm so interested in the 'next gen' drives - I want a real, sustained and measurable performance increase in every area of drive performance (real world!) and not just simply some benchmarks to tell me it's faster.

(My 'benchmark', as I've stated before, is to throw the drive in and use it like I use any other storage solution. So far, SSD's have failed to impress - in the long run... 'longer than 2 weeks').

 

@tiller

your usage are one of the few that a faster spinner RAID may actually be better.

Personally, I would attempt to setup a SAN running opensolaris with a 10GbE for that kind of usage.

 

The only data I've seen are from 1 french store, and they say nothing about Intel vs. Sandforce. OCZ was only mentioned as one category, so that includes Vertex 1 (Indilinx) and Solid (Jmicron) products. Totally different controllers that have had a lot of problems.

Then there's all sorts of problems with the data it self as mentioned in the other threads. I wouldn't trust it as a reliability indicator.

About the Newegg ratings, Intel 510 isn't looking very good sofar.

Saying that Sandforce isn't a reliable controller is a lot of belony in my opinion. I've tested several Sandforce based SSDs. The first gen. Sandforce controller only has one problem: it throttles down sequential write speeds after some usage. For people that need fast sequential writes (like Tilleroftheearth) that is a serious problem. For the average user Sandforce drives are generally faster than Intel G2 while consuming less power.

 

Is there a way we can contact like Intel, OCZ, Crucial, etc themselves to ask about returned drives?

 

You can try, but that's the sort of data that companies very rarely hand out, unless mandated.

 

What? I have a first-gen Vertex, and after a year of heavy use, it's still WAY faster, in all areas, than the 7200rpm HD that's also in my laptop.

Personally, I'm never going without a SSD again.

 

As noted in other places, tilloftheearth has different usage patterns than most of us

 

We covered this topic on the x7200 Owner's lounge

Of particular interest is my post here. Until Intel specifically says otherwise, I'm sticking with TRIM inside RAID is not yet available.

 

Please don't pick and choose what you quote and reply to:

I also said:

To give you some objective numbers for you to think about; in two weeks I put over 3TB of writes on a SandForce based Inferno and for my purposes, it became essentially a paperweight (now used as a USB 'key').

So, what does 'heavy usage' mean to you?

 

A year of frapsing, using it as a windows swapdrive, doing Dev Studio development on it, installing Steam games onto it, etc? I'm sure I've had well more than 3TB of writes on it in that time.

Not sure why your drive is a paperweight, mine still soundly beats my 7200rpm HD in pretty much every way that you can measure a drive. It's not as fast as it was fresh from the box, but it's still a very fast drive, comparatively.

 

No normal functioning Sandforce SSD will become slower than a 7200rpm HDD.

What's happening here is that Tillerofthearth had a bad experience with a Patriot Inferno SSD and therefor he assumes all Sandforce products are bad, including the latest Sandforce 2500 drives which he has never tested.

For more balanced opinions on Sandforce products I suggest reading Anandtech, Techreport and Hardwareheaven.

 

for more balanced opinion, I suggest take all SF drive USER experiences into account. That IMO is much more closer to real world than reviewers trying to bang the drive in a short period of time then sell it or return it or whatever.

So tiller's opinion is just as valid as Anandtech.

 

3TB's in 1 year does not equal 3TB's in 2 weeks.


It's a paperweight first because I really can't live with 100GB capacity - second, even when deleting/uninstalling so that it was 40% filled it was slower than an XT. The only way to get back to the 'like new' performance (which fooled me into keeping it) is to SE it once in a while. Yeah, great productivity tip.

 

I don't discount tilleroftheearth's experiences, but I do believe that you should always take into account the circumstances of the user. In this case, it would be like someone saying that a Ford Focus is not made for actual use because when they drive it 300,000 miles a year, it falls apart (apart from a more "regular" 12,000 miles a year). I think we can all agree that tilleroftheearth is one of our resident more "extreme" users, and while this means a Sandforce drive won't work well for him, that doesn't mean that for someone else, it might not suit their needs better.

 

That is a very valid way to 'discount' his experience as you have considered what is his case.

And I have seen other 'extreme' users who have very similar usage pattern like his and are bite by the SF hype where this DuraWrite issue was not mentioned in those 'balanced' reviews(because they are too balanced).

 

His logic is just flawed. Because he had one mal functioning Patriot Inferno drive he assumes all Sandforce SSDs are bad including SSDs based on a totally new Sandforce controller that he has zero experience with.

The DuraWrite issue you're talking about is not the problem Tillerofthearth is complainging about. DuraWrite doesn't limit speeds to below 7200rpm speeds.

Let's get this thread back on topic: Intel 510, Crucial M4/C400 or Vertex 3.

 

Since the thread is already open on this topic, how do the three candidates shape up against each other? Reviews of the C400 are not yet out as I understand but it seems performance is somewhat underwhelming compared to the Intel and OCZ offerings.

Too much technical talk for me so could someone break it down in simple English regarding the merits of the 3 drives? I'm looking at a future SSD with as much capacity as possible, it'll be used as the OS drive for internet surfing and playing of some games. I don't envisage my read/write usage being too high so which of the drives would be most suitable for me?

 

Fastest: OCZ Vertex 3
Little slower: Intel 510

Reliability of both products is unknown.

For people that move a lot of large files around the Intel 510 can be the better choice.

Conclusion : Intel SSD 510-Series 250 GB Review: Adopting 6 Gb/s SATA

 

Are you planning on updating your guide comparing the newest generation SSDs on the front page Phil? Once the C400 makes its debut and has reviews going for it, the guide would probably be better with its inclusion.

Despite the ongoing furore over OCZ's reputability, is it safe to pick the Vertex 3 over the 510 over performance alone? From what I've read the Intel 510 isn't truly an Intel drive since its controller is outsourced...

 

The review on the frontpage is a review of SATA II SSDs. If your notebook has a SATA II controller you're better off buying one of them.

If you're notebook has a SATA III controller Vertex 3 and Intel 510 make more sense.

I don't have a SATA III notebook yet. I don't know if I will be reviewing the latest SSDs.

C400 seems to perform less than Intel 510, see Techreport.com

I'd go with Vertex 3. It's faster and probably cheaper. I have no concerns over quality. I know OCZ support and warranty are good. The only downside of Vertex 3 seems to be power consumption.

It might be good to wait for the Corsair Force SSD based on SF-2000.

 

More research to be done regarding the current SB-enabled Clevos for me, I'll make a move once the ATI 6970m is out on the market along with the new-generation SSDs.

I'm not looking to wait too long now that my current laptop looks like it won't last the calendar year, I suppose I'll have to pick the Vertex 3 and pray that the drive doesn't fail on me straight away.

 

510 or M4/C400 or Vertex 3 ?

There may be some difference in benchmark but those are all yawn to me. All three's reliability are unknown so I would not pick any one if reliability is on the top of my list. If I am forced to choose only from them, I can only go with Intel then Crucial but not OCZ based on their history(the brand I mean).

 

In that case, what might be the benefit of picking a C400 over the C300 which is 34nm?

 

All these controllers are in constant tweaking and rewrite. They may have a better algo in C400.

 

The C300 seems to have better random read and write. The C400 is rated for the same amount of writes as the C300 according to the Micron blog (even being 25nm vs 34nm).

 

I haven't followed too closely with the C400 thing but remember someone post a link of the M4(?) that is much faster ?

 

M4 and C400 are the same thing. It's performance compared to C300, Vertex 3 and Intel 510 seems dissappointing.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/20646

 

Just wondering.. Will the shrink after 25nm have like 1000 P/E cycles? I think the companies are being pretty damn aggressive with these pushes forward in technology.

 

The 25nm dies have 1,000 P/E cycles. The 'improved' error correction has made them effectively ~3K (depending who you want to believe).

After 25nm - even 500 will start looking good (initially).

 

It looks like Intel 510 is getting owned by Crucial M4 in real world tests. M4 is also much faster in 4K writes and they are similar in 512K. But in Seq Read/Write 510 is much faster. So i am a bit confused right now.

Hmmm

 

I read somewhere that micron was conservative with the amount of writes the c300 could do.. Then basically straight up with the c400 since it was a smaller amount of writes. That's why they're stated as being equal. The c300 can do more than what it's quoted

 

Yeah wasn`t it you that posted a link to a review few days ago where it looked like C300 and M4 was performing pretty similar? Well according to tomshardware review the M4 kicks C300 butt in just about every single scenario

Very tempting to buy one for my next laptop.

 

It is either
510>320>M4>Vertex3
or
M4>510>320>Vertex3

what to choose what to choose...

 

yup.. that was me

i decided to stick with the intel. it's doing pretty well, and seems to have steady results. i'll wait until both the c400 (enterprise) and m4's (consumer) are out, and get beaten up by the masses (probably some new fw too) before i pick one up

 

Smart choice.
510 is a very good SSD anyways and is "up there" with Vertex and M4 and who knows: Maybe M4 will have lots of problems right after release and you are just crusing past everyone with the stable and reliable Intel drive

 

lol, one can hope..

 

Worlds most awesomest site have reviewed the Crucial M4, but they also tested Vertex 3 and Intel 510. God i love their reviews: straight to the point and they test what matters. Be shure to pay them a visit here Hardware Heaven - Crucial m4 256GB SSD (C400) Review

 

Not the best review but definitely a good line from their conclusion that people here need to realize:

"...there is no drive which wins every test."

So there is no absolute best SSD but there is a best SSD for a user's specific task(s). Just have to know what you need and want in order of importance.

 

also note that ssd's are leaps and bounds better then standard Hd's. once you move to an ssd, their spread of performance is very small (staying in the same price/size brackets). while they may seem like huge differences in benchmarks, the actual difference isn't going to super noticeable (unless you have drives to compare/ know what you're looking for)

 

Not sure what you're referring to but Tomshardware doesn't do any real world tests. At Hardwareheaven the differences are very small Crucial m4 256GB SSD (C400) Review - Conclusion

It depends on your usage, preferences, budget, notebook etc....

First question is does your notebook have SATA III, otherwise the 320 doesn't make much sense. The C300 would be a better choice imo.

 

Do you know any better review?

I don't. It seems like all the other sites are leaving out the real - real world tests, even Techreport is skipping them lately.

Hardwareheaven's review shows that the differences in real life are really small.

 

Yeah maybe i misspoke a little there, but tomshardware tested PCMark Vantage in different modes, like "HDD score/Application Loading Performance/Gaming thrughput/Windows Movie maker/etc" and in all of these tests 510 is waaaay down the list while M4 scores the best. I have no idea what these scores means though.
Benchmark Results: PCMark Vantage Storage Test : Crucial m4 And Intel SSD 320: The Other SSD Competitors
Anandtech tested typical light workloads like firefox, office, PDFs etc and heavy workloads like gaming, and once again M4 scores the best. The difference between 510 and M4 wasn`t that much here as the tomshardware review.
The Intel SSD 320 Review: 25nm G3 is Finally Here - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News
I did not read the Hardware heaven review before i posted that statement. I agree that in those tasks done by the reviewers, the difference between a 510 and M4 is negligble. But then again the battle between the fastest drives have always been about benchmarking and scoring anyways

510>320>M4>Vertex3 was more of if Crucial have made a unreliable SSD then i would pick Intel to be safe. 510 first. Vertex last because, you know, it is OCZ.
Why would i pick C300 before 320 btw? Even though the C300 is a SATA 3 and intel 3 Gb/s, they seem to be pretty equal in performance to me according to the reviews. I would rather have a Intel drive than OCZ imo

M4>510>320>Vertex3 if Crucial turns out to be a sturdy reliable choice