Are Intel 330 Series and Samsung 830 Series dinosaurs?

[blackrain]

I bought an Intel 330 180GB and a Samsung 128GB 830 Series at the end of 2012. I was going to upgrade HDs, but I just never got the time to do it (long story).

Are these even remotely competitive with the Seagate 600 (256GB) and Crucial MX100 (256 and 512 GB)?

The Intel and Samsung are unopened so i could recoup my cost easily on ebay. Should I dump one or both of these?

I always got the impression that the 840 Series wasn't even close to as good as the 830 Series (unless you went Pro).

The reliability of the 830 does seem to speak for itself. I am leaning toward keeping the 830 but getting rid of the Intel. The thing that kills me about the 830 is that it is the smallest drive that I have at 128GB.

I am going to be getting some free time in the near future and need to figure out what SSD I am going to use for HTPC and home office builds. I recently got in on some good deals on the Crucial MX100 and Seagate 600.

Would love to hear from this group.

 

[BFG10K]

Unless all you do is copy files all day and/or run some kind of file server with multiple users that generate constant heavy I/O, you're unlikely to notice any performance differences between SSDs.

Instead you should choose based on reliability, capacity, and cost.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Still rocking along just fine with my 128GB 830's. I'm not planning on upgrading until PCIe SSDs takes off and honestly you'd be very hard pressed to notice any difference outside benchmarks.

 

[hojnikb]

Ditch the intel (as its Sandforce) and keep the sammy. With the money you get, buy something from crucial.

 

[dawza]

Ditch the intel (as its Sandforce) and keep the sammy. With the money you get, buy something from crucial.

No. Just no.

OP, this poster aside, I echo the others' advice. You'll be hard-pressed to notice a performance difference. I'm running a 320 in my main workstation and a 520 in my main notebook. Both rock-solid and I can't remember a single instance where I was bottlenecked by SSD I/O, although I'm reminded daily of the delta in CPU performance.

Since the first gen Intel X25, I've upgraded to meet storage space needs and taken performance gains as a side benefit. You'd certainly notice the delta between an 80 and 200+ MB/s sequential write; 200+ vs 300+ is a bit tougher.

 

[hojnikb]

No. Just no.

OP, this poster aside, I echo the others' advice. You'll be hard-pressed to notice a performance difference. I'm running a 320 in my main workstation and a 520 in my main notebook. Both rock-solid and I can't remember a single instance where I was bottlenecked by SSD I/O, although I'm reminded daily of the delta in CPU performance.

Since the first gen Intel X25, I've upgraded to meet storage space needs and taken performance gains as a side benefit. You'd certainly notice the delta between an 80 and 200+ MB/s sequential write; 200+ vs 300+ is a bit tougher.

Its not a bout performance at all. While Intel did make great ssds, they kinda dropped the ball when switched to sandforce.
If he can sell it for a good price, that would be the way to go. With mx100, you'll get better writes, better controller and powerloss protection. Not to mention superior hw encryption, if thats something you need. If you can sell the 330 for the same amout for the price of new mx100, than thats a nobrainer.

Intel on the other hand is just another sandforce drive. I know because i own just that model and i would ditch it the moment, someone would want to buy it.

 

[corkyg]

Have a pair of 830s, 256GB in my laptop. They have provided outstanding support considering reliability, performance and usability for over 1.5 years. I would not replace them until I replace the entire laptop.