i dont see much ppl discussing it so thought of opening this thread
would someone notice the speed difference as heavy user comparing between the Intel 310 and the Runcore T50 ?
you're comparing 200 MB/sec Read & 75 MB/sec Write for Intel with 550 MB/s Reads & 470MB/s Writes
and yes i do care about my data so i dont want to keep doing daily backups![]()
your thoughts?
P.S: my Intel 310 is in the way, so i was thinking to get the Runcore T50 and sell the intel
-
I'd stick with the Intel 310 until there's at least some data on Runcore's long-term reliability. There's no reason to use a faster drive if it breaks in a month.
What I'd be interested in is a long-term (think one year minimum) review comparing the different mSATAs. -
Nevermind.......msata not sate, my bad;/
-
Is Runcore a Sandforce controller? If so, don't touch it, Sandforce drives have massive issues right now. The Intel 310 is a good drive.
Speed isn't everything, honestly, everyone gets tied up in these synthetic benchmarks that don't track real-life useage. In real use, there is not a huge discernable difference between any SSDs. -
The Runcore might be a little faster but the Intel is the more reliable product.
The only thing that really benefits from SATA III speeds is file copies. -
thanks guys, ill stick to my intel then
Runcore T50 Vs. Intel 310 (bought)
Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by Bashar, Jul 23, 2011.