• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

320 or x25-m?

birthdaymonkey

birthdaymonkey

Golden Member
I just bought a used Thinkpad T60 off ebay for $150 and am planning to put an SSD in it and install Win7. This is obviously not going to be a mainline machine, so I don't need bleeding edge performance or a lot of space.

I'm basically considering the 320 80 GB and the x25 80 GB... X25 is $10 cheaper on newegg right now. I was thinking about a 64GB drive (C300), but I don't think it would be quite enough space since this will be the only fixed storage in the computer. I could get a Sandforce, but I've already got two of those and would like to try something different.

Anyway, is there any reason in this scenario that I would want to go with the 320 for $10 more, or is the tried and true (albeit slower) x25 a better choice for an older laptop?
 
Either model should meet your needs. Latency is slightly lower in the X25-M. Read/write performance is a little better in the 320. The difference in write speed might be noticeable on a day-to-day basis.

80GB X25-M vs 320

Sequential Read: 250 vs 270 MB/s [+8%]
Random 4K Read: 35,000 vs 38,000 IOPS [+9%]
Read Latency: 65 vs 75 us (TYP) [+15%]

Sequential Write: 70 vs 90 MB/s [+29%]
Random 4K Write: 6,600 vs 10,000 IOPS [+52%]
Write Latency: 85 vs 90 us (TYP) [+6%]

X25-M Product Manual
320 Product Specification
 
Last edited:
I would go with the older model.
SSD reliability is still a factor in purchasing decisions and the tried and true x25-M is one of the most reliable out there.
The advantage of the 320 is that eventually it should cost less than the x25-M as the 25nm process matures, but right now you actually pay more for it, and get basically similiar performance.
 
The T60P only has SATA1. The T61 also has SATA1, but it can be hacked to unlock SATA2. You won't get the max transfer speeds in sequential reads/writes. However, even SATA1 should be able to use the Intel 320's other improved speed differences.

I have a X61T, which I used modded firmware to use SATA2. I went with the Intel 320 since I needed the additional space options it provided. I can get up to 260MB/s reads and over 200MB/s writes, sequential.
 
Last edited:
Just go with the cheapest SSD with the capacity you want. I have a X61 Tablet, and Lenovo has locked the BIOS at SATA I (150) for compatibility reasons. I believe the same is true on the T60. Hence, you won't actually get any speed benefits above SATA I speeds.
 
320 should, in theory, be more reliable than the X25-M, if reports are to be believed.
At least it has a supercap, which will keep the drive from getting corrupted due to a sudden power-off.
 
I usually would go with the cheapest current gen SSD you can find from the trusted brands, but in your situation where the difference is only $10 and you appear to be capped at 150MB, I would go with the 320 model.
 
Thanks for the input, folks. I think I'm going to go with the x25 since it's currently $10 cheaper. If the 320 comes down in price before my "new" laptop arrives (hopefully next week or tomorrow), I'll get it instead.
 
noblemo said:
Yes. The "K5" part of the product code denotes desktop install kit. Product codes with "B5" include a desktop kit plus a notebook install kit.
Click to expand...

Ah thanks. I just now see it was in front of my face all along listed at the end of the overview.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top