Intel 510/320 vs Crucial M4 128GB/256GB

Im having some trouble figuring out what configuration of SSDs and HDDs to grab on a new P150HM. Would be great to hear the opinions of people with some experience with SSDs.
Here are the arrangements Im considering:
256 GB Crucial C4 ($440)
128 GB Crucial C4 ($235) + 750GB/7200 RPM HDD ($95)
120 GB Intel 510 ($280) + 750GB/7200 RPM HDD ($95)
160 GB Intel 320 ($290) + 750GB/7200 RPM HDD ($95)
300 GB Intel 320 ($540) + 750GB/7200 RPM HDD ($95)

Im not a huge data user, so I figure as long as I have 250-300GB storage, I would be fine. Of course, less money is best, so if you think I can get away with a cheaper config, let me know . If i can, id prefer to stick to one of the larger SSDs and no HDD. I plan to use the computer primarily for gaming, but also for work (word processing, making presentations, etc. Nothing intensive).

Ive got a few questions:
a) I was favoring the Crucial C4 until I read through the tom's hardware review and saw that it's random 4k reads were really slow in comparison to Crucial's other C4 drives (including the 128GB model). The technical reason behind this is beyond me, but Im just wondering if the drop in reads is a good enough reason to move onto the 128GB version+HDD, or the 300GB intel 320 drive.
Here is the article: Crucial's m4 SSD Tested At 64, 128, 256, And 512 GB : Performance Across Capacities
b) Is the increased reliability of intel's SSDs worth the price premium vs the C4 models? Is SATA III vs SATA II really an issue if most of what im doing is gaming? I.e., could i stick with an intel 320 instead of a 510 and not really be missing the extra performance?
c) How much room can windows 7+ essential software be expected to take up on a drive? I actually have no idea and would love to know. Id like to be able to have my OS on an SSD and not have to worry about being extremely selective with which games/files i have on the SSD with it.
Thanks a lot guys. Trying to throw together a new computer wouldve been a thousand times harder without the people and resources on this board.

 

For a new platform (SATA3 capable) system, I would not recommend the Intel 320's.

As long as your 750GB HDD option is a Hitachi 7K750 model, then I would recommend the 120GB Intel 510 Series partitioned to 100GB or less (you could probably get away with 80GB or less, with the following method).

This (partitioning) will give you great sustained performance over time and a very balanced storage subsystem (vs. an M4).

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...rades/608752-hdd-partitioning-help-500gb.html


See my posts in the above link starting at post #3 on how to move the Users folder to the secondary drive (or partition).

a) Random R/W's is not important in today's SSD's (except in benchmark 'scores').
b) SATA3 vs. SATA2 on a modern SATA3 system is an issue: you're paying almost as much yet getting much less out of your system. The reliabiity is another factor to consider (yes, Intel is better), but also the little things like the Intel SSD ToolBox that offers much more than Crucial does for their drives.
c) Moving the Users folder as indicated in the link, you won't have to worry about it. With the Users folder off the SSD, a Win7x64 install including a full (complete) install of Office 2010 is around 14/15GB, not including the pagefile or hibernation file (which depends on how much RAM you have...).

Hope this helps.

 

I think I saw 256 GB Crucial C4 around $310 somewhere

 

Thanks a lot Tiller, much appreciated. Do you think the partition and your guide is something a rather technologically challeneged user could pull off without too much trouble?

Would still like to hear more opinions on the matter if others have them

I was just quoting the price the reseller had on the unit im buying. Im sure i could get the SSD cheaper, but I guess im a little worried about buying a new comp and tinkering around with installs etc, without knowing much. Maybe a few years down the road .

 

Yeah, even if I'm a little biased (30 yrs of installs, lol...) I still think a new user could pull them off (with a little hand-holding).

I'm still trying hard (in my spare time) to post the 2011 version of my partitioning guide (hope it doesn't become the 2012 version!), so if you have some time and/or patience, the 'hand-holding' edition will/should be out soon.

To be fair, the information is out there right now - but it is not in one cohesive package.

Hope others give their opinion/options as well - the more, the merrier.

 

Very few people really need that kind of partition scheme to squeeze the last drop of performance. I am the typical 80/20 guy and would stop at the 80% and just partition my HDD as 100G/200G/200G for the C/D(slower)/E(ISO image) and call it a day. It is simple to do, about 30 seconds.

 

chimpanzee,

I agree and your 'simple' partitioning will still net you a noticeable performance increase vs. 1 single (non-partitioned) drive.

If you're taking 30 seconds to do it; you're too slow!

 

yes, when you are getting old, everything becomes slower ;-)

 

Lol...

that's why we are more willing to take the time to do something 'right', the first time, rather than do it quickly and then need to do it again.

 

If you have SATA3 then I'd definitely recommend the crucial M4. I upgraded from an Intel 320 series recently to a Crucial M4 and the performance difference is noticeable for me mainly in 2 areas:
* Time to actual desktop responsiveness on bootup
* Game loading times

Also, the M4 128GB is $189 at bhphotovideo at the moment.

 

PlatinuM195,

I agree; a SATA3 SSD on a SATA3 system is a 'must-have' and noticeable improvement over a SATA2 SSD.

Who says sequential times are not important?

 

Between SSD, seq times is the only thing to compare(assuming reliability is a non-issue) and the faster the better. The notion of random 4K is the most important factor only applies between HDD and SSD, not between SSDs.

 

chimpanzee,

good distinction.

 

Will such a partitioning also increase speed on a SSD? (intel 510)

 

What helps my usage scenario on a 250GB Intel 510 SSD is:

First: using only 100GB of the ~232GB formatted capacity by creating a 100GB partition (plus the 100MB 'hidden' partition that Win7 does automatically) and only using that part of the capacity ONLY - from when the drive was brand new.

Second: moving the Users folder to my partitioned (first 100GB's, of course) vRaptor 600GB HDD.

With these two simple steps above, I have the sustained high speeds I paid for when I purchased my SSD's, no matter how long I push or use my system(s).

Using them any other way, my system's performance falls to at/below HDD levels - even with only SSD's installed. This is a total waste of my $$$$ and my time (when the above method makes me easily twice as productive at the expensive of double the $$/GB for the SSD's (Intel 510 250GB Series SSD's) I prefer to use).

Hope this helps.

 

Having the user folder on the HDD means that pretty much all settings of your programs are on the (slow) HDD instead of the (fast) SDD. How can that be faster? :S

 

How can it be faster? Like I mentioned, one reason is the 100GB partition on a vRaptor... (first/fastest 1/6th part of the drive...).

Second: any HDD operates fasters when the O/S is not installed on it.

It is what it is; even a HDD + HDD setup is faster setup like this than on a single HDD. Even on a single HDD 'optimally' configured/partitioned (as I would do it).

 

Well I dont have a vRaptor (I use a Samsung SpinPoint MP4 640GB). So not sure if that would have the same effect on this HDD?

Ofc a HDD will operate faster when the OS is not installed on it.. but I wonder if the SSD with OS+Game will operate faster than the HDD + Game but without the OS.

 

The SSD with O/S + Games will operate faster than a DATA HDD with just the Games on it.

The question is though: how much faster do you need it to operate at for the $$$ to be justified?

Yes, it can have the same effect (not as large obviously as on a vRaptor...) on your current HDD - just use a partition smaller than 100GB as your first partition to ensure the fastest possible responsiveness and sequential transfer times.

 

Well its a 120GB SSD... I never used more than 40GB (windows + all apps).. So I will have enough space left for games.