Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > Memory and Storage

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Home and Garden
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-06-2012, 03:51 AM   #1
Magic Carpet
Golden Member
 
Magic Carpet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,856
Default 320 vs 520

http://ark.intel.com/compare/56563,66248

Which would you buy from a reliability point of view?
Magic Carpet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2012, 04:27 AM   #2
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
 
frostedflakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,918
Default

Intel 320 uses essentially the same controller as the X25-M G1 and G2, it's tried and true and has proven itself over the years to be a very solid and reliable controller. The 520 on the other hand is a relatively new and untested drive using a controller that has had a fair amount of issues in SSDs from other vendors. The 520 has gone through Intel's rigorous testing and validation so there's no reason it shouldn't have the same high reliability as Intel's other SSDs, but it's also only been out what, a month? Still kind of early to say for sure.

It's not the fastest SSD out there (although it's no slowpoke either and will still be a ton faster than any HDD), but Intel 320 is your best bet IMO if you want a very reliable SSD.
__________________
Heatware

Last edited by frostedflakes; 03-06-2012 at 04:29 AM.
frostedflakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2012, 10:59 AM   #3
groberts101
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,390
Default

I'd take the faster Sandforce myself.. but I would have to agree with frosted flakes for the most part from a reliability standpoint.
groberts101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2012, 08:15 PM   #4
bryanW1995
Lifer
 
bryanW1995's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 10,928
Default

For the most part? If the only issue is reliability, I'd take the 320 for sure.
__________________
4770k, Noctua nh-d14, 2x256gb m4, xfx 850w, 7970, HAF-x, Asus z87-pro, 2x8gb Hyper X
2500k @ 4.54, hyper 212+, ga-z68ma-d2h, wd20ears, 2x4gb ddr3 1600, gtx 480
MSI GT 70 2oc, i7 4700 mq, gtx 770m, 8gb ram, 240gb crucial m500, 750 gb hdd
bryanW1995 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 05:59 AM   #5
BFG10K
Lifer
 
BFG10K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 20,513
Default

I tend to echo the previous sentiments. The 320 has the known 8 GB issue but otherwise itís generally tried and tested.

520 has Intel, but it also has SandForce. It could be the case of the immovable rock meeting the infinite force.
__________________
4790K | Titan | 16GB DDR3-1600 | Z97-K | 128GB Samsung 830 | 960GB Crucial M500 | 1TB VelociRaptor | X-Fi XtremeMusic | Seasonic X 560W | Fractal Arc R2 Midi | 30" HP LP3065
BFG10K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 06:51 AM   #6
Magic Carpet
Golden Member
 
Magic Carpet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,856
Default

Thanks guys. Very informative.

Hasn't the 8GB issue been resolved yet? I am leaning towards 320 now. Mainly due to 100% Intel design, 6 caps to deal with power failure and lower power consumption. Mainly looking for low latency rather than maximum speed.

Also, the less maintenance (the need to run Toolbox) the better. Working laptop on the go.
Magic Carpet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 07:26 AM   #7
BFG10K
Lifer
 
BFG10K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 20,513
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic Carpet View Post

Hasn't the 8GB issue been resolved yet? I am leaning towards 320 now. Mainly due to 100% Intel design, 6 caps to deal with power failure and lower power consumption. Mainly looking for low latency rather than maximum speed.
Some people are reporting the problem even after the latest firmware.

I ended up getting an Intel 320 SSD (120 GB) Ė Iíll post a mini review in this forum in a few days.
__________________
4790K | Titan | 16GB DDR3-1600 | Z97-K | 128GB Samsung 830 | 960GB Crucial M500 | 1TB VelociRaptor | X-Fi XtremeMusic | Seasonic X 560W | Fractal Arc R2 Midi | 30" HP LP3065
BFG10K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 07:28 AM   #8
Magic Carpet
Golden Member
 
Magic Carpet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,856
Default

That would be awesome. Looking forward to it
Magic Carpet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 07:33 AM   #9
Jman13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 805
Default

Any SSD will have extremely low latency. Even the 'slow' SSDs have latencies 50 times faster than a typical hard drive, and at least 10 times faster than even the fastest 10,000 RPM hard drives. A low latency SSD is going to be much faster than that.

And the Intel 320 has very low latency. 0.07ms read and 0.1ms write.
__________________
Intel Core i5-2500K @ 4.5 GHz, CM TX3 | Gigabyte Z68AP-D3 | EVGA GTX 460 1GB @ 925/1850/2125
16 GB Kingston HyperX DDR3 | 128 GB Crucial M4 SSD | 4.5 TB (spread over 3 HDD) | LG BD-R Drive | Corsair HX520
Jman13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 07:44 AM   #10
Magic Carpet
Golden Member
 
Magic Carpet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,856
Default



What these IOPS really mean and why I should be paying attention to the 8GB one, for example? Is it Input Output Per Second? Does this make 320 a better "read" drive?

Last edited by Magic Carpet; 03-07-2012 at 07:46 AM.
Magic Carpet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 04:44 PM   #11
NP Complete
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Utah
Posts: 57
Default

I think people misquoted the "8 GB" issue. Quick google reveals that the bug is a "8 MB" issue. Drives that experience unexpected power loss sometimes report their size as 8 MB on reboot.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-320-Series-SSDs-Affected-by-Firmware-Bug-that-Causes-Data-Loss-210809.shtml

This seems like an edge case bug that is unlikely to cause issues for the majority of users (but still sucks if it hits you).

From a reliability stand point, I'd also agree that based on review/personal experience the 320 seems more "reliable", but that's just a gut feeling. The 520 could be just as reliable than the 320 if not more so - it just hasn't been around as long so it's hard to get a "feel" for it.

For most typical consumer "real world" use, there will be very little noticable in performance between the 320 and the 520. Random access latency on both is comparable, which has the largest impact on consumer performance.


Not sure what exactly you're asking about IOPS, so I'll answer it as fully as possible:

IOPS is the measure of Input/Ouput Operations per Second. More/second is better in terms of performance. The chart you linked seems to show the IOPS over an 8 GB span vs the full drive - this shows how the drive handles reads and writes to a small portion of the drive vs the full drive. You'll see a bigger discrepency across a mechanical HDD since random operations will be faster on the inside of the platter than the outside (due to rotational latency, primarily). For SSDs, the span shows how well the SSD is able to balance reads/writes across the drive for best performance - ideally there should be no difference between a full drive span and an 8 GB span. Since the 8GB issue was misquoted, the results you linked don't really show anything.

As far as a better "read drive", IOPS are an artificial benchmark and should not be used to extrapolated determine the overall performance characteristics of a drive without considering other benchmarks. Yes, the 320 is faster for random IO, but unless all you plan on doing with your drive is 512 byte random reads/writes all day, the 520 will likely be faster since it handles large writes/reads faster due to it's SATA III interface and SandForce controller's data compression/deduplication.


Long story short - 320 "seems" more reliable, while the 520 is faster (in most benchmarks/real world use).
NP Complete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2012, 08:19 PM   #12
nanaki333
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,668
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BFG10K View Post
Some people are reporting the problem even after the latest firmware.

I ended up getting an Intel 320 SSD (120 GB) Ė Iíll post a mini review in this forum in a few days.
i never updated my 160GB 320s and never had the issue. if it ain't broke, dun fixit!
__________________
i7 3960x | Intel BOXDX79SR | Corsair H100 Watercooling
Samsung 840 Pro 256GB | Crucial M500 960GB | 1TB Velociraptor
8x4GB DDR3 1600 Kingston Hyper X | eVGA Geforce Titan
Thermaltake Level 10 GT
nanaki333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2012, 07:23 AM   #13
Don Karnage
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,865
Default

I picked up my 320 when best buy had them on sale for 149.99. Its really a nice drive and I haven't had any issues with it
Don Karnage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2012, 07:37 AM   #14
chin311
Diamond Member
 
chin311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,196
Default

Had my 320 120gb since early December and love it!
__________________
It is easier to stay out than get out.
chin311 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.