Intel X25-M vs 320 for OS drive

I'm considering either one of these as an OS drive. My use is very mundane, no gaming or photoshopping or video editing, etc. The X25-M does have better random performance so it should be a better OS drive right? That being said will I actually notice the difference? My current though is that I may not notice the random performance advantage of the X25-M in everyday use but when I do occasionally need sequential performance the 320's speed will be really apparent. Any thoughts?

Am I right that the X25-M 160gb has a bit higher power consumption over the 320?

Crucial M4 does offer better performance in every respect but they jump in capacity from 128gb to 256gb. 128gb isn't large enough for my use and 256gb is too large and too expensive. That leaves only Intel.

 

I would honestly get whatever you can find cheaper. You will not notice the speed difference in anything other than benchmarks.

 

The Intel 320 Series 160GB SSD is highly recommended - even over the X25-M.

Much higher real world performance that you will use and notice every day.

Worth to choose over the X25-M even at a price premium, imo.

Oh! Yeah, and great battery life too.

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/8031036-post2098.html

Good luck.

 

​

I have both. The 320 is definately faster, and my 320 is 300 gb vs 160 on the X-25. Read is comparable...but write speeds on the 320 are about 20% faster. Overall...the 320 is a splendid SATA II drive...

 

Honestly the difference for normal usage is minimal. I've own 2 X25-M G1 SSDs and I had 2 G2 80 GB, and now 2 320 series, almost no difference IMO.

Shouldn't the X25-M last longer as it's 34 nm vs 320 series 25 nm?

 

Thanks everyone. I'm still leaning toward the 320. Looking at random write performance (which is where the X25-M excels compared to the 320), the 320 will still be faster than my 310 so I shouldn't notice much difference in real use.

 

Again will you be able to tell the difference between 270 and 200 read? And also X25-M G2 uses 34 nm Flash NAND, so it theoretically should last longer. Just buy whatever is cheaper, and 320 series is dropping like a ton of bricks, I believe Newegg had the 80 GB for 80 after a 50 MIR and 20 dollars off special.

 

The 320 comes with a 5 year warranty anyways, I imagine most people would upgrade before that even expires.

 

Well warranty does not cover data recovery if the brick gets bricked. Anyways SSDs should last more than 5 years...well minus a certain company that starts with an O and ends with CZ.

 

Yup that's true, but there's where Intel's reliability track record comes in.

 

I haven't used x25 but I have been using 160GB Intel 320 for almost 10 months and I have never seen any issues (i.e. bluescreens, slowdowns etc.).


--

 

Exactly. Unless you do a LOT of time sensitive read/writes all day long will you notice. Normal use, get the cheapest you can afford. X25-M is plenty fast. Get whichever is cheaper.

 

Eh most of the time you are doing reads, and 265 read vs 200 read doesn't justify say 30-40 dollars more IMO. Personally I've never had an issue with my 2 320 series SSDs, but there have been users on this forum that have experienced the 8 mb bug. But also G1/G2 also had issues at launch which Intel quickly fixed.

 

or yet the G1 with its 50nm ?