SSD...Intel 510 120GB or Crucial C300 128GB?

I'm going to pick up a SSD for my OS drive. I have a second internal hard drive in my notebook to store all my data. This will be for the OS and programs only. Typical PC usage, nothing crazy, but I want speeeeeeeeed, but not at the cost of reliability.

Criteria:

1) Reliability
2) Speed
3) Price
4) Warranty


What say you forum?

 

The Intel 510 Series 120GB is quite a reliable SSD as reviews claim, it can be found here for $270 w/ FS.

 

INTEL INTEL INTEL!!!. For me and I would like to suggest it for all - when buying SSD, in addition to the speed, never forget to look at the reliability (aka a peace of mind). There are many brands who're faster than Intel, but what's the point if it's not reliable?

Sure SSD is fun, but your data/time is much more important than the SSD itself. Get Intel period.

 

^I tend to agree...which is why RELIABILITY is #1 on my list. The big reason for this thread is I read that the both the 510 and the C300 are using Marvell controllers and Micron chips...they seem to pretty much be the same except for firmware...I dunno...

I'll probably end up with the Intel, just getting the forum pulse on this.

 

If reliability is your concern, the Intel has slightly more safety features but the C300 is a bit faster.

The C300 is also 128GB versus 120GB (but Intel might have more hidden provisioning).

I would buy the C300. The thing is $199 on Newegg right now. The Intel is $269!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148348&cm_re=c300-_-20-148-348-_-Product

 

Better get the Crucial M4 (a.k.a Micron C400). It's cheaper than Intel and a bit faster in single tasking. In heavy multi tasking the Intel is a bit faster.

Some people assume Intel 510 will be more reliable. I don't. Going by the hundreds of Newegg customer reviews the C300 beats the Intel X25m in reliability. Sofar the reliability rates of the Intel 510 are nothing special.

 

Almost all the negative 510 reviews are from Apple users with 2011 MBP's (which is interesting, as they are Intel based systems....lol)

$70 bucks is nothing, the price difference is inconsequential.

 

As opposed to all the reports from the industry and companies that say otherwise? Not all reviews on newegg are justified.

I've used a lot of brands. I'm not an Intel fanboy but their firmware is top and their toolbox for upgrading their firmware is idiot proof...well almost.

As we used to say when I used to program.."Make something idiot proof and they'll find a better idiot"

 

Crucial M4 128GB $249 incl. shipping: http://www.crucial.com/store/partspecs.aspx?IMODULE=CT128M4SSD2

Real world performance compared with Intel 510: http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1143/pg9/crucial-m4-256gb-ssd-c400-review-install-times.html

All the reports? Do you mean the one from a french retailer that probably sells far less SSDs than Newegg? That report didn't include all the RMAs that went directly to the manufacturer. The only other numbers that I know of are Intel's own numbers.

And of course those numbers are all about Intel X25m. The OP is looking at Intel 510, a brand new product with a controller that Intel has never used.

 

true about the 510. But Marc Prieur ( the french guy that Anand talks about) has a reputation of not publishing crap. http://www.anandtech.com/show/4202/the-intel-ssd-510-review/3

I trust Intel when it comes to SSD and their firmware. Sager/ Clevo only offer Intel SSD because of that in their laptops. They prefer to not deal with a ton of RMAs. Just an example. But the Crucial is a good drive too. Just saying that between the two, I go Intel.

But it's a free country and people can buy what they want. There's no good or bad drive between the Crucial and Intel.

 

I think in reliability Crucial C400 and Intel 510 are very similar.

In performance the C400 is a little faster in single tasking and 4K random performance. The Intel is a little faster with heavy multi tasking and sequential speeds.

Performance wise, the C300 may have the most bang for the buck.

 

If thy opinion is so, methinks thou buyeth the Intel because of the brand name

Mr. Mysterious

 

Sony uses Toshiba and Samsung
Apple uses Toshiba and Samsung
HP uses Intel and Crucial
Dell uses Samsung and possibly other brands

Just some examples.

 

None use SF as far as I can tell. I would say any of these brands used by tier 1 vendor should be fine reliability wise(i.e. there is no systemic problem, occasional lemon is unavoidable no matter what)

 

Don't shoot the messenger I'm just reporting what These two companies have said as to why they only offer Intel.

Check my signature...you'll see I'm not buying all Intel.

 

Not shooting anyone. I'm reporting what other companies use. They don't want to deal with a ton of RMAs either.

 

What the heck, the price jumped up $30.