Really want an SSD, unfamiliar with what would work well for me...

Hey guys! I'm thinking about finally making the plunge to getting an SSD. I feel like I've gotten to the point where all the other components of my main gaming laptop (Asus G53SW) are high quality enough that the drawbacks of having a standard HDD are starting to rear their ugly heads. I've also got two hard drive bays, so I can keep my 500GB HDD for general storage, while running windows and my active programs on the SSD.

So, now I have a few questions. I've been doing a fair amount of reading on the available SSDs out there, and I've sort of narrowed things down in terms of what looks to be the best options for me. Based on what I've been reading, this would appear to be the Intel 320 series, one of several types of OCZ products out there, ad maybe the Crucial M4. I'm really unclear about the strengths and weaknesses about these drives, though I know a few things.

At the moment, I'm leaning towards an Intel 320, because it appears to be the most reliable overall, and I have to admit that I feel a certain degree of comfort with a brand name like Intel. Although conversely, it would seem that OCZ is considered the "best" brand out there in some respects right now, and I've heard they offer superior performance for the money you spend.

And speaking of money, this is my real quandary - at this very moment, I have about $200-$220 to spend on an SSD. In terms of size, the range I'm looking at is 80GB-120GB. Now, would that be enough for running Windows and my major programs/games? I would have obviously have to cycle out some of the inactive ones, since space goes very fast these days. I tend to think that 120GB would be adequate, and 160GB would probably cost at least $300 and is a little more than I would want to spend right now. Should I wait a little longer and maybe save up for something bigger/better anyway? Stick with something smaller? How much do I really need to be spending here?

I'm also really curious just to hear recommendations in general. Between options like Intel 320, OCZ Vertex 2/3 and Agility 2/3, Crucial M4, etc... What do people think is the best at this very moment? What's reliable? How can I locate information about which ones would be compatible with my particular laptop (G53SW)? I know it'd have to be 2.5", but for instance I'm unclear as to whether I would need/want SATA II or III... I like to think I know a thing or two about PCs and technical hardware stuff, but to be honest it's been years since I knew what I was talking about completely and I'm still learning - I have a difficult time locating information that would apply specifically to certain models, at times. So any help/advice would be honestly appreciated, thank you.

 

120GB Intel 320 Series.


--

 

120gb intel 320 or 120 crucial c300. if you can swing it and want a little extra headroom, save another $100 and get intel 320 160gb. i got mine for $295 from the egg shipped free. i've been cleaning and cleaning, and tweaking and i'm down to 42 gigs used out of 149. i have everything installed except my games which will take another 20 gigs. i don't know your situation, but i wanted the headroom for longevity and performance.

 

There seem to be about 1-2 of these threads popping up every day.

Start here:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/sol...orage/583146-i-have-300-ssd-should-i-get.html

 

Yeah, I know there are a lot of these threads out there but it can be a bit tough to find specific information, though I do appreciate the feedback.

One thing I really do want to know is how can I find out whether my computer runs with SATA II or SATA III, or both? And other technical info? I am a bit curious about all of that and it just seems rather difficult to ascertain that sort of information.

 

SATA III is backwards compatible so II will work as well. For what your system has, start with the owners manual, manufacturer website and even the right sub-forum here on NBR.

 

Your computer is SATA III capable, so it can run SATA II of course. If you have SATA III, then I see no point in handicapping it with a SATA II ssd. I would advise a c300, since it will take full use of your sata 3 capabilities, while not being that expensive as well. It is also quite reliable.

 

I'd recommend you get the Intel 510 Series SSD (SATA III) if your talking about SATA III, since it is the one of the most reliable SSDs out there w/ TRIM support.

 

Intel 510 of Crucial M4. For insane benchmarking speed OCZ Vertex 3. For day to day use the Intel or Crucial in 128 or 256GB.

 

Great, thanks for all the suggestions! I also discovered that I can go with SATA III, and that really helps narrow things down. I'm also glad that it'll really increase the sort of performance I can expect to get out of an SSD, even though I'll have to pay a little bit of an extra premium, of course.

I was looking at the OCZ options, and the Vertex 3 looks extremely intriguing since by all accounts it would seem to be among the most high-performing (if not the highest-performing) SSD on the market right now - I suppose that some reliability issues would be the trade-off, there? The Agility 3 is also SATA III and slightly cheaper, so that would appear to be more in my range - is the performance dropoff from the Vertex 3 that much worse? If I go with OCZ, should I just go for the Vertex 3 because it is the best?

I do find both the Intel 510 and the Crucial M4 extremely tempting, though. My dad swears by Crucial's products and refuses to work with anybody else when he buys RAM, so part of me feels like it would be wise to go with them. But Intel seems to have a fantastic reputation when it comes to their stuff actually working as advertised...

Anyway. I've got it narrowed down to those 4 - OCZ Vertex 3/Agility 3, Crucial M4, and Intel 510 - in either ~120GB or ~160GB depending on how much I feel I should/could spend. At this point, I'm going to sit on this for a week or so and wait to see what the best deals I can find on those products are. The Agility 3 and the M4 would appear to be the cheapest right now - both are going for around $220 or so. The Vertex 3 and Intel 510 seem to be a bit more expensive. Crucial M4 also has 128GB instead of 120GB - kinda nice to have a little extra room. But I'm gonna sit on this, like I said, try and learn a little more maybe and wait to see if some awesome deal possibly comes up.

 

I would advise you to spend this week researching reviews, seek info on all forums of the drive manufacturers and then make a decision. There are pros and cons to all drives, but most are very close in real world applications. So do your work on research, then just enjoy whatever you pick. The difference in productivity ssd vs hdd is very prevalent in certain use. I see it and have tested it on my laptops, and found I paid for my ssd in less than one half of a year when I compute the amount of time it takes to do tasks I do on a daily basis.

 

The Vertex stuff performs great in benchmarks. But in real life use it really doesn't matter. The Intel and Crucial stuff is great and reliable. My personal preference is the Intel SSDs as they are rock solid (as opposed to regular solid!) and there is a bit of a price bump there. Still, worth it since SSD are really a luxury anyway.

 

Keep in mind that the Vertex 3 is really fast during normal usage, but the differences with Crucial and Intel are tiny. As shown in this review:
Crucial m4 256GB SSD (C400) Review - Install Times

And this is what happens when you write +- 20GB of incompressible data to the Vertex 3:


Now it will recover from that, but Sandforce isn't a good choice for people who write a lot of incompressible data, that's for sure.

 

Y'know what? Crucial M4 right now is absolutely my top choice. I've done a good bit more reading today, and all in all the M4 seems like a totally decent choice (and maybe the best for me) when you balance out cost, space, performance, and reliability. I might very well go for the Intel 510 if their 120GB drive wasn't priced aroung $30-$50 or so more than Crucial's 128GB drive. And when you start talking about the Crucial M4 256GB drive versus the Intel 510 240GB, you start getting even more serious value, as far as I can tell. Part of me wants to save up like ~!$400 to get a 256GB M4 but I just don't think I'm ready to invest that much money in this technology the first time around.

 

I agree the Crucial M4 is a good choice. The size benefit over Intel 510 doesn't really count in my opinion because the Intel has more over provisioning. The Crucial should not be filled over 90% or performance will take a hit.

 

Huh, well! Apparently the Crucial M4 does not work well with the G53SW. Someone just made a post in my G53SW owner's lounge thread about how he had bought a Crucial M4 and it simply would *not* run in his G53SW no matter what he tried, and that he had been on the phone with people from both Crucial and Asus and none of them could offer any real help. He seemed to indicate that he had learned that other owners of this same notebook had encountered the same issue with the Crucial M4, but I was slightly unclear on that.

Regardless, it's enough for me to rule out the M4. Now the Intel 510 is the new frontrunner, which makes me slightly unhappy since the price point for the 120GB drive is fairly high. I am admittedly tempted to just go for the Agility 3 since it is cheaper, but something tells me that I'll be a great deal happier if I go with Intel over OCZ - it just provides me with a certain amount of comfort, buying from a brand like Intel whose processors I have been using successfully, happily, and problem-free for an extremely long time.

 

get an intel 320 if you want to save some money. or a c300.

 

I have an Intel SSD (G2) and am very happy with it.

If you want a Sandforce drive, I would advise against OCZ. There are plenty of other manufacturers out there that make them. OCZ has a poor reputation when it comes to product integrity and advertising. G.Skill is a better choice.

Both the Intel 320 and 510 series have had rave reviews. With a SATA III, the 510 is the better choice for you.

The Crucial M4 is the top performer out there right now. It's only drawback is that it does not do an efficient job at garbage collection. You absolutley need an OS with TRIM support and you need to execute it regularly with the M4.

 

I agree on OCZ having some issues there. And Sandforce reliability is low for all brands.

On the positive side: the OCZ support forum is excellent. Look here to see how quick I get my replies to questions. I don't know any other manufacturer with such good and quick support from people who know what they're talking about.

If I were to buy a Sandforce drive I would actually prefer OCZ. Other manufacturers tend to be slower with firmware updates and don't have similar support.

 

Well, that is a huge disadvantage for me. I don't want to have a product which *requires* a support forum. See my point? Plug and play and forget the rest.


--

 

indeed. a good support forum is empty.



and btw, there is only good support in the ocz forums for other reasons.. everything else is deleted..

 

This is why I just went with Intel for my last few drives. Very few overall complaints from people plopping them in "basic" Windows 7 PCs. Damn reliable.

 

Your comments are not based in reality. No support forum is empty. Your beloved Intel also has an active support forum:
Solid State Drives: Intel Communities

I've worked with several support forums, the level of expertise and the quickness of response on the OCZ forum is the highest I know off.

If I recall correctly it was Stamatisx having problems with his Intel X25-E and not getting any help from Intel.

Intel is reliable, so is Crucial C300/M4 and Samsung 470.

 

sorry. i correct myself: an IDEAL support forum WOULD BE empty.

means there is no support needed.

you do get my point, though.

 

Never said they weren't. But I don't own any of those drives so I can't speak from experience.

 

I suggest make your choice based on the most you can spend and what that will buy. Install, tweak it a little and then forget it let it do its magic. I did and have had no trouble with my OCZ drive. Looked at their forum but never had an issue to ask about, now that is an ideal product. Enjoy.

 

Welp, I pulled the trigger, guys. Ordered a 120GB OCZ Agility 3. I know, I know, OCZ isn't exactly known for the most reliable of reputations, but here's my thinking.

First off, I was only going to get a SATA III - didn't seem to make any sense to get SATA II since both my M11x nor my G53SW are SATA III capable. Then, I really wanted a Crucial M4, and would have bought a Crucial M4, but for the fact that another prerequisite was that the SSD I purchase work well with both of my laptops, potentially. And the BIOS on the Asus G53SW that I own is apparently totally incompatible with the M4 for some reason. No clue why that is, but everyone who has attempted to use that SSD with that laptop (or with the Asus N53SV for that matter) has met with abject failure. So that's ruled out, even though I am currently planning on trying out the SSD in the M11x anyway. Just wanna have the option of putting it in the G53.

I'd have liked to have gotten an Intel 510, but they were, quite frankly, too damn expensive. $280 for a 120GB SSD is just way too much. The Vertex 3 is ruled out for the same reason - and besides, I want something that's markedly power-efficient, and based on the info on anandtech, neither really fit that bill *particularly* well.

So! At that point I still had several options. There was Kingston - which is always the bottom of the barrel in benchmarks and apparently lowers your battery life from what you'd get with an HDD (!!), so no way on that. Then there were the Corsair SSDs, also not particularly power-efficient, not particularly cheap, and not particularly well-known as being especially reliable or much of a standout in terms of performance. I considered a G. Skill SSD since I've had good experience with their RAM, but I couldn't find much info at all on their products, SSD-wise.

So it came down to the Crucial C300, and the Agility 3. The C300 is the oldest of the SATA III drives, but it still performs well in benchmarks, so I did consider it. I was a bit worried though, that if the M4 didn't work with the G53, maybe the C300 had similar issues. But in the end it was price, more than anything else. And the Agility 3 currently comes with a mail-in rebate that knocked $30 off the $230 price tag, bringing it all the way down to about $200 and about $20 cheaper than the C300. Not to mention the Agility 3 is one of the most power-efficient SSDs on the market according to anandtech, and in terms of benchmarks (especially the 3dmark ones that judge real-world performance the most accurately) is always just a tick behind the Vertex 3 for the absolute best-performing mid-level SSD on the market right now.

So! In the 120GB-128GB range, the Agility 3 is currently the absolute cheapest SATA III on the market with the MIR, is the second/third best performer in benchmarks right now depending on how you judge those things, and is one of the more power-efficient SSDs available on the market. The supposed unreliability of OCZ products was a mitigating factor, but not enough of one to push me towards the C300, or enough to make me spend an astronomical additional $75 on the Intel 510 for the same amount of space. I also was mostly looking at amazon prices - I'm on a free trial for Prime, and thus get free two-day shipping which saves me a good deal of money as opposed to bargain-hunting on random sites I've never done business with, which charge varying amounts for shipping/handling. I also know that Amazon is honest and decent about their return policy, so if it does fail in 3 days I won't be screwed over completely, or anything.

Also, I would like some advice on something else. As I said, I have two laptops right now. My G53SW which is my big, beastly laptop that is essentially my desktop-replacement at home - and then the M11x R3, which goes with me everywhere I go and which I use in my apartment in bed, and such. I'm a bit broken up about which to put the SSD into. the G53 has two HDD bays, one of which is empty. So I could crack it open, put the SSD in there, and boot from that. With the M11x I'd be replacing the HDD completely.

Honestly, I think I'm going to put in the M11x. Makes a little more sense. It'll have a real impact on two factors - battery life, and weight. The G53SW is also very high-performing as is - I'm incredibly happy with it. Whereas the M11x has a ULV Sandy Bridge processor, and not nearly as good of a GPU. It could really benefit from a performance boost. It also has more heat issues, and I'm hoping an SSD will keep it a little bit cooler. Also the G53 is a nightmare to open up and access the HDD bays, where it's fairly easy and simple with the M11x. Does my reasoning make sense, guys?

 

Sorry, your reasoning does not make sense to me!

But, since you've gone ahead and done the deed - put it in your 'go everywhere' system. You may as well enjoy that benefit of your decision.

Btw - make sure you back up religiously...

 

Eh - not like I can't go back on it if it doesn't work out. Out of curiosity, what would you have done?

 

I would have bought the 160GB version of the Intel 320 series.

Great battery life, more than good enough performance and reliability with a 2+ year track record on the same (but tweaked) controller.

 

Well, unfortunately the 160GB Intel 320 is about $80-$120 above my price range. And I cannot go over my price range. I was not going to spend more than $200-$220 or so at the very most, no matter what. I did give serious consideration to buying the 120GB Intel 320. But again, it simply does not make sense to me right now to buy a SATA II drive when both my laptops are SATA III capable. The Agility 3 is getting great customer reviews all over the place, superb benchmark scores, and fits perfectly within my price range.

And incidentally the Agility3 uses slightly less wattage across the board than the Intel 320 - in terms of battery life, they're more or less identical with Agility 3 coming out on top slightly . ( source here from the power consumption section of anandtech's May mid-range SSD roundup)

That being said, if I do have serious issues with this drive right off the bat, I fully intend on returning it probably for an Intel drive, specifically because of the reliability factor.

On a long-term basis, I really do not expect this to last more than 12 months - maybe 18 months. I'll be ridiculously shocked if it lasts 2 years. I know that SSDs are very new, rather volatile technology. I've read a great deal about them. I'm not some delusional fool who expects things to work the way that I want them to work, as opposed to the way they actually work, just because I spent X amount of money. It's so absurd how people do that, it's like everyone has their own personal conception of what, say $200 is worth, and what that should buy them. I know exactly what I am buying, in this case.

 

Assuming the drive isn't a lemon to begin with, the SSD you've picked up should last close to 5 years until the NAND runs out of write operations, since you've picked a Vertex 2, the chances of a lemon are slightly higher than competitors but not significantly so to guarantee a failure before the NAND lifetime is up.

 

I don't understand all of your logic and the very little I do understand makes wonder why you bought ocz? You do know that ocz are some of the most expensive ssds and tend to drop in value rather quickly. Makes me wonder. Ahhh, not really but I didn't get an ocz ssd either.

 

Well, I got a good deal - I purchased mine for $230, which was $50 below the standard price to begin with. Then there's the MIR that gives me another $30 off, so I'm paying $200 for it, saving $80 off the standard price, combined with free shipping. That's cheaper than every other SATA III SSD out there in the 120-128GB range at the moment. OCZ being known for selling more expensive drives doesn't really enter into it - I was just bargain hunting for the best possible drive within a certain set of parameters, ultimately. If I could have found the Intel 510 for $80 off the retail price, I would have gone for that in a second.

 

Well, I was trying to imply there's a reason you'll find lower than msrp
deals on ocz ssds.