SATA II laptop, would you go for a intel x25-m 160 gb?

I am thinking of upgrading my laptop to a SSD drive.

I found online an Intel x25-m 160gb for around 300 bucks, would you go for it?

My laptop only supports SATA II.

 

If you'd like faster write speeds you could go for Intel 320, same price. X25m reads a bit faster.

Google shopping

 

That is incorrect. 320 reads faster than X25-M. 160GB: 270 MB/s vs 250MB/s

 

That is correct , if we look at 4k random perspective

Intel X25M


Intel 320


please don't look at sequential R/W because that doesn't really count for most usage

 

The x25m 160gb starting to go down in price, last couple of days most retailers droped it from the $400 to $315 (was like that already for big retailers with MIR), i expect it to drop a little more, maybe in a month or two below $300, if you stall sales websites, etc. I think either choice is fine, both should be pretty similar, if you want something already proven that works and its stable and reliable, go for the X25m, if sequential writes matters more for you, and you want to try new tech without knowing its going to be more or less reliable than X25m then go for the 320, price difference atm should be insignificant.

I personally was in a similar situation, i opted for the X25m 120gb out of having a 160gb already and been perfect for me, i was going for 320, but for me to be reilable is more important than anything, a lot more than speed, i just dont want to upgrade to something that might stutter, bosd or lose speed in time (not saying the 320 will). But this is more a transitional drive for me, ill probably upgrade soon, hoping for intel 700 series.

 

As far as I know it's correct. Check out these benchmarks:
Intel 320 300GB review door Blaze85 | Core | Tweakers.net Productreviews

Intel 320 300GB vs. X25m 80GB. The X25m beats the 320 in CDM seq. reads, 4K, 512K reads and every file size in HDTune IOPS benchmark.

The reason for the lower read speeds of the 320 is the usage of 25nm flash. Anandtech showed in his latest review that 34nm is faster than 25nm.

The Laptopmag review also shows that the X25m launches applications faster than Intel 320.

 

Well it depends on how you see it- The 320 is faster in 4K random read, it is much faster in 128K random read. X-25M and 320 are just about the same in Anandtech`s light and heavy workload. 320 is about 10MB/s faster in sequential read. But even so, the X25-M are so marginally faster in CrystalDiskMark it makes no difference. I do agree that CDM shows a bit faster speed. Guess we are both right.

Start reading from here:
The Intel SSD 320 Review: 25nm G3 is Finally Here - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

 

I prefer to go by real world benchmarks, not Anand's workload simulations. Laptopmag confirms the 320 loads applications slower than the x25m. Also 4K random performance is lower.
Intel SSD 320 (300GB) Review - A Review of the Intel SSD 320 (300GB)

By the way for an accurate comparison we should be comparing 160GB vs. 160GB.

 

Ok i am going to email laptopmag to force them to delete that review. You have probably posted that review 50 times since i showed you it. Yes 1 review says that, but anandtech shows a different image.
And when synthetic tests from well known reviewers show you something different about SSDs, you are always refering to "real world benchmarks". No offence Phil

 

Why? Intel official specs say that 160GB and 300GB G3s are identical in Sustained sequential reads and Random 4KB Reads.
See here for yourself Intel® Solid-State Drive 320 Series – Overview

 

I know it may look that way but I've seen quite a few CDM results of 320 owners that showed the same picture. Slightly lower 4K reads than x25m.

I hope we get some more real world reviews of the Intel 320. Maybe Hardwareheaven.

If I would go by Intel's specs we wouldn't need reviews anymore....

160GB has a different amount of channels and chips. There will be some differences. Maybe not the biggest but they will be there.

 

Hmmm, i just looked over Tomshardware review of the M4 and 320. They did also find out that X25-M was slightly faster than 320 with IOMeter Read and with the CrystalDiskMark with 4K and 512K random Read. Weird!
Crucial m4 And Intel SSD 320: The Other SSD Competitors : The Other 2011 Competitors

Guess that Anandtech use other tools and tests than CrystalDiskMark which Tomshardware and legitreviews use. Which one should we trust?

 

I think you're right that he uses a different tool.

Who should we trust? only real world benchmarks, like the one on Laptopmag

 

You have done the same amount of damage to that review as radio does to a song Phil. You may like the song the first 5 times it is played but after that it goes downhill...

 

I can understand it's boring for you Cloudfire, my advice is usually meant for the people who haven't read it, like the OP of this thread.

And if you can point me to another review that was also run on a laptop with the same amount of real world benchmarks, I'll gladly use that one.

 

None. A benchmark is as good as what it wants to measure and the real world is not defined by one set of test(whatever it is).

For those who want to make informed decision, go through what those test are about. For those who don't want to spend the time, there is no need to compare the benchmarks as actual usage is very unlikely to show any difference anyway, except for tiller . Just get the SSD that fits the budget and call it a day.

 

Speaking in real world usage, the difference in speed is unnoticeable between these two drives. I can live with one drive being a second slower. I got the 320 because it's somewhat newer technology and has encryption features and it was cheaper..... $200 for a 120gb drive.

My suggestion is to just buy one and enjoy it. Benchmark numbers will be an after thought once you are enjoying the difference an ssd drive makes in speed, battery, and heat of your laptop.

 

Heck yes. 160GB X25-M on the way. Can't wait and can't think of a better drive factoring in price, performance, reliability on SATAII.

 

Keep in mind that the X25m doesn't do to well without TRIM. So it's a good idea to use the TRIM hack.

 

I saw the hack available. It's causing trouble for a lot of ppl, and yet there's one guy who has the same Intel drive we're talking about and says that he's getting good performance from the hack.

I'll mess with it a bit. I'll try over provisioning vs. TRIM hack and see what happens. (I'm talking about my MacBook BTW, if anyone cares)