Intel 320 vs Crucial M4 vs Samsungs?

I'm considering SSD for the new 8560w. It supports SATA3.

What I want is solid, quality piece of hardware that will LAST few years without any problems.

I was decided to buy Intel 320 160GB, because I've thought it will meet my requirements, based on this endurance test: SSD Write Endurance 25nm Vs 34nm

However I did ask about this at local forums and they suggested Crucial M4 or new Samsungs to be better choice than the Intel, and now I'm totally puzzled what to do. To add to this puzzle M4 isn't made in 160GB version, so I would have to go with 128GB version.

What should I do now? :/ Thank you.

 

Hmm, that is a good question, i'd try to find benchmarks of the 128GB M4 on SATA3 and Intel 320 160GB on a SATA3 port as well. The M4 will have more bandwidth available since it is a SATA3 drive and the 320 is SATA2. The larger capacity of the 320 might be to it's advantage though given that it's likely it has more NAND ICs on the PCB. The only benchmarks for the 128GB M4 i could provide are on a SATA2 port so i won't post them.

 

Isn't the mostly important just random 4k reads? I won't store movies on that drive so, I don't know if that's an important value, is it?

is it some kind of disadvantage that it has more ICs?

 

All are important, the 4Ks will have a greater impact, that's all.

On the contrary, more ICs mean more memory to write to simultaneously. However, if you're bottlenecked by the SATA2 interface on the drive, then it doesn't matter does it? Not saying that the 320 will bottleneck, only that it is something you have to check.

 

Sequential speeds isn't the thing that worries me here.

 

Based on your needs, you should get an Intel 320. There are three factors that go into my recommendation:
1) Reliability
2) Write Endurance
3) SATA2 vs SATA3 bandwidth

Reliability
If you absolutely want reliability above all else, get an Intel 320 drive. Intel SSDs have a field RMA rate of about 0.6%, versus other SSD manufacturers that have an RMA rate of about 2.2% - 2.5%. ( source)

Write Endurance

Write endurance doesn't matter. You will never run into a write endurance problem on an SSD.

If you actually break down the write endurance numbers, they turn out to be 20GB of writes every single day for the next 5 years. You will not be writing 20GB of data to your drive every day. You will not be doing it for 5 straight years. And (most importantly), you will most likely be replacing your SSD within a few years anyway to upgrade its capacity or performance.

Write endurance sounds scary to people, because SSDs are a new technology that they haven't used before. But when you actually do the math, you quickly see that write endurance doesn't apply to you.


SATA2 vs SATA3 Bandwidth

Again, this is irrelevant. SATA2 vs SATA3 only matters in maximum theoretical bandwidth. And the only time you actually reach maximum bandwidth is when you are doing large sequential read patterns.

The reality is that 95% of the data read patterns on your system are random reads. The Random read speeds are what really matter with an SSD, because that is what you actually do during your day-to-day activities. And an SSDs Random Read speed will not even come close to saturating SATA2 bandwidth, so SATA3 bandwidth is irrelevant. So if you look at any number or measurement for an SSD, it should be Random Read speeds, not maximum theoretical bandwidth (SATA2 / SATA3).

Now, it may turn out that the best drive for a person may coincidentally happen to be SATA3-capable. But the reason for picking that drive should be Random Read performance, and not the fact that it is SATA3-capable.

 

The number of simultaneous writes is determined by the number of data channels on the SSD controller, and not the number of NAND flash memory chips in the SSD.

Most SSD controllers use an 8-channel design, including the Marvel 9174 controller in the Crucial M4. Intel 320 uses the same controller as what was in the Intel G2, which is a 10-channel controller. It would not matter if an Intel G2 was constructed using 10 NAND flash memory chips, or 10,000,000 NAND flash memory chips. The Intel 320 controller is only capable of accessing 10 NAND flash memory chips at once.

 

minor clarification:

Intel G2 is 10 channel but each channel can contain one/two ... blocks. Which is why 160GB is faster than 80GB for write even though they are both 10 channel. 40V is even worse, only 5-channel.

Though based on the number it seems that number of channel/blocks affect write more than read.

 

Crucial M4 is a great drive, the best price/performance/reliability drive on the market. Intels are very good as well, just not in the price department (aside from the 320 series). Samsung is also good. You seem to have at least found that you want to avoid Sandforce (ie OCZ, Corsair, etc). That is 100% correct. I too went back and forth between the 320 160GB and the M4. That 160GB size is a sweet spot imo, i can't get all my programs and stuff on a 128GB (well I can, but with pretty much no space left), but 160GB is plenty. In the end I got the newer tech in the M4 and have been very happy aside from the price decreases on it over the summer

Any of the 3 will be great for you, the M4 has the advantage of being the fastest, and still very reliable. Most studies show close to intel reliability numbers, and with the Intel 320 having the 8MB bug, more people are steering away from them atm.

 

True enough, the controller is limited by the number of channels, however not all drive capacities will use all channels due to the amount of NAND ICs if i recall correctly. I may be wrong though.

Didn't Intel fix the 8MB bug in a newer firmware?

 

You are correct. Smaller capacity SSDs will not use all of the available channels, and will have slower write speeds. You see this with drives in the 40GB or 60GB capacities. ONce you get to 120GB / 160GB, you start running into drives using all available channels on their controller.

And yes, Intel fixed the 8MB bug in a newer firmware. It is no longer an issue.

 

But a few people had it happen AFTER applying the new firmware. Or was there another new firmware I missed?

 

kent1146: your thought process was the sam as mine, I appreciate it!
madmattd: yea exactly I don't know if the 128GB M4 will be enough on the long run. If the M4 would be 160GB model it would be easier to decide

yes, after.

the enormous intel warranty period gives me the feeling intel knows what are they doing - they wouldn't provide 5years on 320 series if they shouldn't be supposed to last 5.5years, right?

 

Hey, don't get me wrong, I have an Intel 320 in my work PC that I haven't even had updated to the firmware that fixed the bug. It didn't want to flash, so I gave up, then heard about people having the 8MB bug a couple days after they flashed so I never returned to it.

 

Good to know some people still get the bug. At least, if there's one manufacturer i trust that'll do the utmost to fix this and honor the warranty without making a fuss, it's Intel.

 

the question was never about warranty but has the 8MB been fixed. I also saw people saying the still experienced that after the firmware release. Again, not sure if there was another firmware release after that.

A bug is a bug, not about how long the NAND would last.

 

yea the warranty remark wasn't regarding the bug, I've tried to separate it in the post with empty line, but obviously it wasn't enough.