Real Life Performance

Will I really make use of a SATA 3 SSD? I only plan on having Windows 7, apps, and games on my SSD, and I'll probably only transfer things once to it, if that. I'm deciding between:

120GB OCZ Vertex 3 Sandforce Solid State Drive (Up to Sequential Read 550MB/s - Write 500MB/s SSD Serial-ATA III) ( + 290 )
120GB Intel 510 Series Solid State Drive (Up to Sequential Read 470MB/s - Write 315MB/s SSD2 Serial-ATA III) ( + 299 )

or if SATA 2 is fine:

80GB Intel 320 Series Solid State Drive (Up to Sequential Read 250MB/s - Write 70MB/s SSD Serial-ATA II) ( + 162 )
90GB OCZ Vertex 2 Sandforce Solid State Drive (Up to Sequential Read 285MB/s - Write 275MB/s SSD Serial-ATA II) ( + 182 )
120GB OCZ Vertex 2 Sandforce Solid State Drive (Up to Sequential Read 285MB/s - Write 275MB/s SSD Serial-ATA II) ( + 218 )

80GB would be more than enough, I think, but most importantly, do the read/write speeds matter to someone who will never use the drive in a professional setting. The only thing that matters for me is loading times.

 

For what notebook is this? does it have SATA III?

Are those prices euros or dollars?

 

Notebook is SATA 3, yes. It's the ASUS G73SW, and the prices are American.

If there's a different drive you guys recommend, I could always buy it myself. Also, those prices are added onto what they charge for a 500GB hybrid drive, so the Vertex 3 does NOT cost 299, lol.

 

At those prices I would stay with the hybrid drive. You can always upgrade to SSD later.

SATA III SSDs will save you a couple of seconds here and there.

It sound like a SATA II drive might be good enough for you. If 80GB is really enough for you the Intel 320 is ok. It's not the fastest but it's a reliable one.

 

Save a couple of seconds compared to what? As for the 80GB Intel, will I notice the read/write speed difference between that and the Intel 510 or Vertex 2 or 3? The biggest thing will be gaming. I read somewhere that random 4k writes determines the speed of games, is that right? As for sticking with the hybrid, I'm definitely going for the SSD, I just don't know if I'll buy one myself or get one with this company.

 

1. Compared to SATA II
2. a few seconds here and there
3. no, the load times are determined by read speeds, not write speeds.

For example: if the Vertex 3 loads a level in 16 seconds, the Intel 320 might take ~22 seconds.

More examples: http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1143/pg11/crucial-m4-256gb-ssd-c400-review-load-times.html

 

I see. Thank you. If I did go SATA 3, should I go with the Intel? I read the reliability is better than the speed difference, which seems to be pretty small.

 

Does anyone know the nature of game level loading ? It is obviously read but is it bulk sequential read or multiple small read ? Either case, I beleve a SF (even the 1xxx gen) should beat Intel

 

^ I don't know. I think it's a combination of both. I did see high sequential read speeds benefit game level loading.

If reliability is your priority, the most reliable SSD is the Intel X25m. The 320 and 510 are new products.

Ps. I'd stick with the hybrid drive first. Many people are impressed with the Seagate XT's performance, including me. Check the reviews in my signature to see why.

 

According to newegg people are very pleased with Intel 510 so far. But like Phil say, it is fairly new so nobody knows the final outcome. Both C300 and Intel 510 use a marvel controller and the C300 have like 3% giving it 1/5 on newegg.
Vertex 2 on the other hand have lots of unhappy customers, 20% 1/5 on newegg.

Based on this and the reputation of Intel (Intel is making the firmware for 510), i would assume the 510 to be the safest choice

 

unhappy doesn't mean failure though. I don't believe the SF drives have a failure rate of 20%, WAG is no more than 5%

Being super conservative, I would only pick G2 or 320(if the price of G2 is higher than 320) then 510. Of course that is because I don't need sequential speed king.

 

For what it's worth, Vertex 3 has only 5 star ratings sofar. 17 in total.

 

I agree that it is not all are complete failure per se.
What the people who gave Vertex 2 120GB 1/5 complaint about:

General problems (Not specified): I
Not reckognised by BIOS: IIIII
Rebate issues: II
Died suddenly: IIIIIII
Slower than expected: II
Too small capacity (LOL): I
Misc. problems BSOD, freezing: IIIIIII
Got 25nm instead of 32nm (scam): III
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227590&cm_re=vertex_2-_-20-227-590-_-Product

 

Did you include DOAs in 'died suddenly'?

 

What does DOA mean?

5-6 of them are from people amazed by the specs and they do not own it lol. But who knows, maybe OCZ have made a better drive this time? I am not saying that Vertex 3 is a bad drive, i am just saying based on previous drives Intel would be safer.

 

Dead on arrival. It means the drive was dead to begin with.

 

Died suddenly: IIIIIII

terrifying!!!

 

Now we need someone to count for Intel x25m 80GB, Corsair Force 120GB, Crucial C300 128GB and Samsung 470 128GB

 

I went through all the ratings again sigh. None of them was dead on arrival. They all died from 1 week ++ except 1 guy, it died on day 2.

 

Intel X25-M 80 GB: 1 out of 57 people gave it 1/5 in ratings. LOL
It suddenly died.

I see no point in going through C300 since it has only 3% 1/5. Samsung 470 6% 1/5. But if anyone is interested go ahead lol

 

That someone is me

Though I only did it for my own purpose before I ended up with the G2. Was getting the Vertex 2 and had a DOA(well very close to, die after I restored the image to it). Lost one full work day(in dealing with it) that is enough for me to buy quite some SSDs.

Started to search around the internet for all these problems(no matter what brand it was) and Intel was the only one that gave me the confidence. The latest Intel figure confirms that too.

 

Only 57 reviews for the Intel, while the Vertex has 302 reviews...
2% of Intel died, 3% of Vertex 2.

Are you sure you should only count 1 star reviews? Maybe there are failures in the two stars too.

Please count the X25m 160GB

Edit: Even the three star reviews contain failures. The X25m has one.

That's 2 failures in 57. That's 4%. Not very scientific but still.

 

The most reviewed Intel is the G2 120gb retail box with 146.
5 one egg reviews. Zero two egg. Four three egg.
Oh, well. 2 bad drives out of 146.

One Eggy:
DOA: I
Quick death: I
Disk wasn't partitioned at the factory, and no partitioning software was included with it: I
Rebate advertised, but rebate link didn't work: II

Three Eggies:
Submitted rebate but never paid: I
SSD Toolbox didn't work with raid: I
Not faster than my old Kingston: I
Intel's web site and drive migration software don't recognize the drive as being a valid Intel drive: I

 

Yes but that is too much work
If i should count the 2/5 then Vertex 2 120 GB looks even worse since X25-M 120GB have 0% 2/5 and Vertex 2 120 GB have 9% 2/5.

 

The Intel X25m 120GB is a relatively new product. The Vertex 2 120GB has been available much longer.

It would be more fair to compare the intel x25m 160GB.

Possibly, but it depends for what reason they gave 2 stars. Maybe it was because they didn't get their rebate or they got 25nm.

 

Phil. Could you please stop trying to talk it away? No matter what you try, Vertex 2 is still plauged with problems.

Looking at the X25-M 160GB, it have the same reliablity as the 120GB that taxmantoo counted. It have 3 people (3%) giving it 1/5 and 2 people (2%) giving it 2/5.

1/5:
Does not fit Macbook lol: I
Dead in a couple of hours: I
Failed: I

2/5:
Not reckognisable by BIOS: I
BSODS: I

 

I have no doubts that OCZ drives have problems. A lot of them are firmware based.

My interest is more in failure rates. I expected less failures among Intel drives than Vertex 2 but the numbers don't really confirm that.

Intel X25m 160GB has three failures in 87 reviews as far as I can see. Vertex 2 has 8 in 307. That's less failures for the Vertex 2. I am very surprised by that. Not that any of these numbers are scientific.

 

If I am not mistaken, those 3 Intel cases are all around end of 2009/beginning of 2010. that was the time when Intel had a bit of trouble here and there(like their firmware upgrade fiasco).

And why I said, time proven is more important than brand or model. I would not blindly believe Intel.

Same applies to SF drive. Whenever I think they are 'out of beta'(I hope they have after a year or so broad beta test), I would reconsider them if the price is right.

Beside, firmware problem IMO is more serious than random lemon. Which again like everything else, different person has different perspective.

 

here are the results for the Corsair F120 CSSD-F120GB2-BRKT, 90 feedback from newegg

General problems (doesn't fit well,no setup utilities, wrong drivers): IIIIIIII
Not recognized by BIOS: IIII
Rebate issues:
Died suddenly: IIII
Slower than expected: IIII
Too small capacity (LOL):I
Misc. problems BSOD, freezing, sleep/wake issues: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Got 25nm instead of 32nm (scam):
DOA: I
Bad customer service:IIIIIIIII
Bad sectors:II
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...ark=&IsFeedbackTab=true&Page=9#scrollFullInfo

 

Why are you looking at failure rates? Yeah, that is something every product have, be it clothes or electronics, intel or OCZ. For me i would much rather have a SSD fail on me than having to struggle with the other problems listed, like freezing, not detected by BIOS or BSODs. Atleast when the drive fail you will have a clear case against the OEM and will get the product replaced. But with freezing etc it could be much worse to prove that it is a product fault, not to mention the hassle figuring out exactly what is wrong with it

Anyhow as you mentioned Phil, i revisited the Vertex 2 on newegg again:
The people who gave it 2/5 (9%) complaint about:
Not recognisable by BIOS: II
Got less speed than advertised: III
Died suddenly: III
25nm scam: I
Doesnt come with screws lol: I

As you can see, all of them are the same problems as the ones the people who gave it 1/5 got. Which makes the drive even worse.

 

All these are known issue of SF(not recognized in BIOS, died suddenly, BSOD on resume), applies equally well to OCZ and other brands. Most should have fixed by now. Old notebook also plays a factor(the older the notebook, the more likely you would see these problem).

They are all power related(in a sense).

 

A bit unfair to rate a product based on the customer service.
If you exclude them you get 12% 1/5 instead of 21%.

 

Almost all of the bad ratings are from february to now. If you go to August last year and to the end of 2010 you will find almost only 5/5 ratings. Too bad only 3 experiences are made the last 2 weeks. All of them 5/5 and in this month. Perhaps the update from OCZ came April because March had a lot of bad ratings.

 

you're right as it is like counting 2 times the same issue (bsod, freezing and sleep/wake)

 

I said 'should' because they are constantly coming out with new firmware at the rate of almost 1 in every month or so(though they don't tell you what is fixed, well only selectively anyway).

 

Oh well. Guess we will have to wait and see. Been an interesting research to look at the ratings btw

 

The hybrid drive is certainly impressive, Phil. As for the SSDs, what seems to be the consensus here? Is there a chance the drive will fail if I'm only using it to load games and what not? It seems it doesn't matter if I go SATA 2, is that correct? Whether it's correct or not, what SSD should I look at?

 

1. Try your hybrid drive first

2. You're chance of an SSD failing seems to be 2-4%, very low. Lower than traditional hard drives.

3. A few seconds here and there.

4. Good SSD's are Crucial C300, Intel X25m, Samsung 470.

This review will show you how fast these SSDs load Photoshop. Not exactly the same as a game but I don't think it's far off.
http://www.laptopmag.com/review/storage/intel-ssd-320.aspx

Here's a review that covers game loading:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/19162/8

The earliest feedback on the X25m 80GB is from October 2010.

That means all the feedback Intel got for the dodgy firmware has been left out.

Intel seems to have replaced their older SKUs with newer ones with more mature firmware, possibly in order to get better ratings.

Because most of the firmware issues have been resolved now, as far as I know. It took a long time though.

Even if people buy a Vertex 2 now they can get one with old firmware. And people often complain before they update the firmware.

 

Intel have put in their press release that the failure rate is between 0.3-0.6% for the x25m line. Either you have very convincing evidence to support what you 'guess' or else it is well ...

 

The Newegg ratings show that the failure rate for the X25m is higher than 0.6%.

That number 0.3%-0.6% is coming from Intel's own IT department and one client who used the SSD in their data center.

Newegg's Intel X25m 160GB has 3 failures in 87 reviews. That's 3.4 %.

 

If I recall, Intel said they have 3 number the 0.6% is for those sold in retail channel and using 87 review to come up with a number is well..

 

Yes Intel does seem to claim 0.4% for retail.

It's interesting to see that the Newegg numbers show a different picture.

 

sample size and that not all satisfied customer would give a review.

 

That's possible. It's also possible that Intel counts different or is not giving us the real numbers.

With counting different I mean not all drives that are considered failed by the customer will be considered failed by the manufacturer. Maybe all they needed was a firmware update.

Personally I don't trust statistics like this when they come from manufacturers. They usually come from their marketing department. I've worked in IT for a while. I find data coming from customers, like the Newegg ratings, far more interesting.

 

Yup everything is possible. Newegg data needs to be examined and different people see them differently. Just a data point. I didn't give positive review for my x25m, neither did I mention my dead vertex 2. So one less positive, one less negative. If you use a sample size of only 80 or so, just my data can move the needle.

 

I think you have made a very important point here. It's generally accepted that more people with a bad experince will post a negative review than people with a good experience posting positive products veiws.

I saw an interesting example today in an online poll that asked if people had Seasonal Allergies?
"yes"- 51%
(23993 votes)
"no"- 49%
(22935 votes)

So we have a reasonable sample size of 46,000 people - 1/2 reporting allergies. Yet the medically accepted incidence of this condition is on the order of 15%........... Interesting!!

 

Yeah Newegg probably sold a lot more than 87 X25M 160GB. I'd be interested to see the reviews for the older SKUs.

Edit: found the old 80GB X25m http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...ckTab=true&Keywords=(keywords)#scrollFullInfo

At least now there are hard numbers to support that the Intel X25-m is more reliable than OCZ Vertex 2.

Does anyone want to summarize for other models like Crucial C300 128GB and Samsung 470 128GB?

 

It's hard to make the newegg numbers be apples to apples. The Intels have such a huge price premium that you likely end up with completely different purchasing habits by the respective customers, meaning a lot of other personality traits could be different between them.

Regarding OP's topic, I'd buy a vertex 2 off of a disgruntled OCZ hater. They are cheapest at retail, have a relative discount due to bad PR, and still the performance champ for compressibles which should average out with non compressibles to make differences negligible.

But then again, few ppl like my shopping logic.

 

Also keep in mind that NewEgg users can be (to steal a great phrase that I once heard) "often wrong, seldom in doubt". I've read a number of reviews of various products where the reviewer was just trashing it for some issue, yet it was clear to other more experienced folks that it was pretty clearly a PEBCAK error.

I'm not saying that's the issue with NewEgg's X25 reviews... but I also would trust Intel's numbers more.

 

I saw a nice example last week on another site. Someone was trashing his Vertex 3 because it 'failed' within one week, he claimed. Then some other people started asking if he did a clean install. He didn't, he had transfered an image of a partition without checking alignment. After that he did a clean install, turned out his SSD was working flawless.

I've also seen people complain about their Vertex 2 and Momentus XT without having updated the firmware, which would have sold the issue they were having.