Intel 530 240GB vs Samsung EVO 250GB at same price point?

Samsung EVO, 97K R/66K W IOPS, 540R/520W(under Turbo)- under 300 normally:
For daily task I do, it could handle well with its RAPID+Turbowrite so its performance would probably be faster than Intel 530.

Intel 530, 41K R/80K W IOPS, 540R/490W:
1. MLC is a more mature technology and it does offer a more constant and stable performance.
2. Endurance.
3. Better customer service

It's hard for me to choose. I'm not a big fan of software little tweak, but it does provide significant increase in performance in certain intervals. Especially RAPID provide a significant boost. But intel's endurance and reputation is great too.

I'm a student who does normal task with my computer, some coding, lots of web browsing and a little bit photo and movie processing and storage.
Would I even notice the difference?

How would you choose?

Thanks!

 

Both are so fast and reliable (given your tasks) that the difference between the two in those respects will be marginal. I would go with the EVO simply because of the extra 10gb of storage; also, you can generally find the EVO for slightly cheaper than the Intel.

 

With both these drives you need to leave around 30% of the capacity as 'unallocated'. Without doing so, the Intel SF based drive can and will be pushed into a corner where performance is dismal - unless you SE it... While the EVO will drop down to 30MB/s - yeah: less then 1/3 of HDD's speeds... and do note that the steady state performance of the EVO is closer to 150 than 'under 300'.


Myself? I would discount any of the 'peak' scores that are published, I would discount any benefits that RAPID may offer (unless you're 'adventurous' as Anand mentions) and honestly rate the drives at their base/nominal performance curves - not their advertised 'up-to' speeds.

Even comparing the power used with these drives the Intel comes out ahead (well, at least for incompressible data - which is what would be the norm for your workflow).


The EVO has a lot of bells and whistles that sound to me like a Chevy Chevette with chrome wheels, a huge tail pipe and a 'performance' ignition system... but none of that make the car (or the SSD) go faster in real world use.


See:
AnandTech | Samsung SSD 840 EVO Review: 120GB, 250GB, 500GB, 750GB & 1TB Models Tested

See:
AnandTech | Intel SSD 530 (240GB) Review



For the $20 difference in price right now; I would not be considering an EVO (actually; not even at $100 difference).


See:
Hard Drives - Desktop & External Drives at Memory Express


And while the SF based Intel's drives plummet (and might not recover short of an SE) to ~180MB/s after it has been 'tortured' - the EVO is still dropping to 6x slower speeds. Even though the EVO can 'recover' from this - this is still laughable performance from an SSD in 2013.


See:
AnandTech | Samsung SSD 840 EVO Review: 120GB, 250GB, 500GB, 750GB & 1TB Models Tested

See:
AnandTech | Intel SSD 530 (240GB) Review

Sure those peak speeds are tempting (but 7 seconds of 'wow' performance is just not long enough in any modern workflow).


But, I have learned that the sustained performance of SSD's is the more realistic way to judge them.


Hope some of this helps.


Good luck.

 

I was very surprised about your statement and I digged it a bit. for a while I was lead to believe 840 evo is not good.
However, Anand stated that EVO passes their traditional test, the 30MB/s come from a more extreme test. He concluded that he would even consider a "best pick" for ssd for 840 evo.

Now I like 840 EVO even better.

 

The 840 is a good choice. LSI has gotten over much of its SandForce related problems but there were so many that I'd stay away from drives with SF controllers for another couple of years.

As you say you have read from the "Final Words" section of AnandTech's 840 review, the 250 GB drive should be just fine.

 

You have to be a more discerning reader:

Anand is stating that the 1TB EVO is a better alternative than the M500 960GB Crucial SSD and it could even become the better ($$) choice over time as the EVO's price drops.

And no, the EVO is not his 'best pick' - it is 'probably his pick for best mainstream SSD'. What you have to understand is that Anand is taking mostly price into consideration and not pure performance (notice that there are not any comparisons in that article with any of the Intel drives).

You can like the EVO all you want - but the Intel 530 Series (at the capacity point you are considering) is by far the much better SSD.

 

And today only the Intel 530 240gb is $150 at Amazon. Price/value is always a factor.
Amazon.com: Intel 530 Series 240GB 2.5-Inch Internal Solid State Drive (Reseller Kit) SSDSC2BW240A4K5: Computers & Accessories

 

Toshiba Q series are the best SSDs.

 

Hm. I have heard that the Toshiba Q series are inferior, although I admittedly don't know much about them.

The Intel one dropped to $150 today, but the EVO has been $150 many times before, and definitely will be in little over a week. $150 seems to be the most common sale price for a good consumer ~250gb SSD.

 

Seems the Intel 530 has an issue Intel us trying to fix. It won't be seen if you do a warm boot. See this thread and specifically the last post on this page https://communities.intel.com/thread/44258?start=60&tstart=0

 

New tech, old BIOSes. Nothing earth shattering. A firmware fix is being worked on. Lenovo apparently has BIOS updates for some models already.

 

I too have had problems with my SSDs earlier. But since I have started using Intel 5xx series of SSDs, my opinion about SF has changed ridiculously. I think only the first generation of their SSDs had some compatibility issues across SSD manufacturers. I am excited to work on launched 3rd gen controllers