Vertez 2 or Intel 320?

I am looking at buying a 120gb SSD so which one:

Vertex 2 for $160
or
Intel 320 for $220

Price is a factor but I would like a quality drive that will be dependable and last...Thanks

 

If you're looking at quality, then the Intel 320 is going to be a safer choice. The Vertex 2 despite the large price difference has a chequered history regarding reliability, the Intel 320 on the other hand does not have too many reported failures despite its recent retail start date.

 

Intel 320. For sata II, that's pretty much the best choice. The vertex is faster on paper, and in real world also, but its reliability is very questionable.

 

If you want bragging rights, get the Vertex 2.

If you want reliability and consistent performance, get the Intel drive.

 

You mentioned dependability as a bigger factor than price, so absolutely go with Intel. My Vertex 2 is generally faster than my Intel X25-M. My Intel isn't your Intel, of course, but it should be close enough. If you are upgrading from HDD, then it won't matter which you get. If you are upgrading from another SSD, then you might give the Vertex 3 a look.

 

I was in the same position. I went 320 and have never looked back. Next time I may go for speed, but for now reliability won, hands down. I love the 320. Nice to have the 160GB as well.

 

It is because 320 has the same controller from Gen2 which is already mature. Technically the reported failure rate should be smaller than Gen2 drives (which is stated by intel too).


--

 

I also choose a Intel SSD.
My 120gb 510 may not be the fastest Sata 3 drive on the market, but in real life that doesent matter, at least not for me.

 

BTW, if we're talking those 25nm POS Vertex 2 drives, then definitely, definitely the Intel 320.

 

The 510 is Marvell controlled, FYI.

 

IDK if this helps but this is a vertex 2 80gb.

Its rated at 280 and 275 and this what i get.

 

You should run your tests using 50MB instead of 1000MB. You are killing your write cycles.

 

It's still near the top for Anand's heavy storage test. I don't even care about sequentials and random numbers anymore unless it's for diagnosing a problem. The light and heavy tests seem most relevant for real world performance.

 

BUY INTEL, period!
Reliability is #1. What's the point being fast if you found your drive dead next day? Other than that, with human sense, you are barely able to notice the speed difference, unless you're using benchmark tools.

Invest in Intel (a bit expensive tho), enjoy the speed + get peace of mind that your data, your work, your hardwork, etc, etc safe.

 

+1

tests are to verify stuff works as expected. for the rest, real world experience is what matters.

that doesn't make tests unimportant, though. verifying that stuff works as expected is important.



and to the op. intel ftw.

 

OK good to know its my first ssd.

 

Love my 320 160GB. Never looked back.

 

Yep, same for me too. And if you haven't seen so just a reminder: Intel has increased the warranty for 320 series to 5 years (including the already sold drives too):

New 5-Year Limited Warranty on Intel® SSD 320


--

 

I'm definitely going with the Intel, now I have to decide on 120gb or 160gb???

 

Is an extra 40gb really worth $90???

 

160GB.

It is not just an extra 40GB. Due to the structure of the SSDs you will get additional benefits on r/w speeds. In this case write performance increases considerably.

Here is an image taken from anandtech. I have added the red rectangle for clarity:




--

 

Also consider Crucial C300. It's faster and just as reliable as Intel.

It uses 34nm NAND which is rated at 5000 write cycles instead of the 3000 write cycles that the Intel is rated at.

Intel SSD 320 (300GB) vs. Crucial C300 Review

 

Still only a 3 year warranty on the C300.

 

I wonder if Intel's 5 year warranty is still in effect when you've exceeded the 3000 write cycles. Does anyone know for sure?

Edit: doesn't look like it's covered: "Additional limitations apply to enterprise usage levels" source.

 

Here are the details of the limitations.

Intel® High Performance Solid State Drive — 5-Year Limited Warranty

 

OK for OEM products it's clear. Not covered when it's worn out.

What about the retail versions? I don't really see it.

 

It appears to be the same based on the wording I highlighted below.

http://download.intel.com/support/ssdc/hpssd/sb/5yrlimitedwarrantyssd320seriesmay102011_en.pdf

 

Faster? Sure, for some things. But more reliable... well... I'm skeptical, considering that Anandtech killed their demo unit within a few days.

 

The IOPS don't mean much. I think the Vertex 3 debacle has proven that. Right now, my high relevancy numbers are the Anandtech Heavy Storage Bench numbers and to some extent the Light Bench numbers. Because going by just random and sequentials would not tell you how fast the Intel drives are.

 

I think there are very few laptop users that create a load comparable to Anandtech's Heavy Storage bench. I think his light bench is more representative of laptop users.

Here's a real world review done a SATA II laptop:
Intel SSD 320 (300GB) vs. Crucial C300 256GB Review

I'm going by the hundreds of reviews on Newegg. Intel X25-m had a bit more failures than Crucial C300.

 

That's true. Although, I should say that my needs and wants are a little different than most ppl. Buying the fastest drive isn't priority #1 for me. Rather, I want the fastest drive in a worst case scenario. Because it doesn't matter to me if a Lamborghini or Zonda is faster by a few mph. If one can't corner at all, then it's useless.

Heavy Storage Bench gets close to that kind of evaluation, I think. At least, it's a better measure than what we've had before. I wish Anand would do RAID 0 incompressible sequential tests on Adobe Premiere, Photoshop and .avi transfers.