First SSD Recommendations? (Intel, Crucial, Corsair)

[GTaudiophile]

I am currently looking at three options:

Intel 510 120GB ($285 or $2.38 per GB)
Crucial M4 128GB ($220 or $1.72 per GB)
Corsair Force GT 180GB ($300 or $1.67 per GB)

I am currently in favor of the Corsair as it offers the greatest value as well as the fasted listed read/write speeds.

The Intel drive is arguably the most reliable. (But offers the same warranty as the others.)

The Crucial drive is simply the cheapest.

Any comments?

 

[MontyAC]

Check out the Plextor SSD M3. Marvell controller, Toshiba server grade nand, 256mb cache and 5 year warranty.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820249014&cm_sp=Cat_SSD-_-Sale-_-20-249-014

 

[God Mode]

If I had to pick from those 3 I would choose the M4.

 

[Coup27]

The 510 is a solid drive and one of the very few SSDs to have never received a firmware update for bug fixes. It is expensive however. Too expensive IMO.

The m4 has shown to be a solid drive. It has had issues but these have been swiftly dealt with by Crucial.

The Corsair is a Sandforce drive and thats a whole subject on its own. For me, the platform has had too many problems to recommend to other people.

I would also look at the Samsung 830.

 

[gramboh]

The 510 has gone up in price since June 2011 somehow, while everything else (Marvell like the M4 and all the SF2281 drives) are 50+% cheaper. Crazy.

 

[God Mode]

The 510 has gone up in price since June 2011 somehow, while everything else (Marvell like the M4 and all the SF2281 drives) are 50+% cheaper. Crazy.

I remember reading on AT somewhere how intel likes to maintain at least 66%? profit margin on their products. I could be dead wrong on this.

 

[DrewSG3]

Check out the Plextor SSD M3. Marvell controller, Toshiba server grade nand, 256mb cache and 5 year warranty.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820249014&cm_sp=Cat_SSD-_-Sale-_-20-249-014

any reviews how that compares with the Crucial M4

 

[MontyAC]

Just found a review:

http://usingwindowshomeserver.com/2011/12/18/review-of-the-plextor-px-128m3-ssd/3/

 

[bryanW1995]

I remember reading on AT somewhere how intel likes to maintain at least 66%? profit margin on their products. I could be dead wrong on this.

That's so LAST YEAR thinking. They want 101% now I think...

@OP: Honestly, all of your choices are unpalatable for one reason or another to me. Generally speaking, I'd lean towards the 510 first, but at over $2/gb that's just too much to stomach. The m4 is a better deal, but still quite expensive. If you're willing to spend the $300 for the corsair, I'd just spend the few extra bucks ($345 as of yesterday) and grab the 256gb crucial m4 at newegg.

edit: here it is, no MIR hassles, either: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148530
re-edit: Why do you think the 128gb m4 is $220? Here it is at newegg for $179: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148442

So, either way, it's the m4. I'd probably spend the extra and get the 256gb drive, but that 128gb drive isn't a bad option for $179, either.

 

[philipma1957]

yes you mention you would spend 300 for a 180 gb corsair so 345 for a crucial 256 gb is not a big strech.


this seller has it for 349.

http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=CT256M4SSD



another option is a samsung 256 gb for 349

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/828449-REG/Samsung_MZ_7PC256N_AM_830_Series_SSD_with.html


both are sata III with good reputations for being reliable. the above sellers are no sales tax to most states.


I think to the op newegg, superbiiz and bhphoto all have no sales tax.

I really don't like corsair that much..

Intel crucial samsung are all reliable good ssds. I have owned and used a few and built a lot of modded computers with them.

I have a Perfect track record with these as ssd upgrades. better then 20 intels 7 samsungs and 3 or 4 crucials.


Corsair was 2 purchased 1 bad. They gave me a fast rma which was good. So 2 out of 3 worked in mac mini's that I modded.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Hmmm. Instead of the 256 Crucial M4, why not 2x of the 128 Plextor M3 in RAID 0?

 

[palladium]

If you want Intel, try to grab a 520 if your local shop has stock. Else, I'd go for M4.

 

[bryanW1995]

Hmmm. Instead of the 256 Crucial M4, why not 2x of the 128 Plextor M3 in RAID 0?

A 256gb ssd is already much faster than a single 128gb drive. Not as much faster as raid 0 maybe, but obviously you have about 1/2 the chance of a failure, you can trim the single drive, and intel mobos only have 2 "good" sata 6gb/s ports right now, anyways, so you might want to keep that 2nd slot open in case you want a 2nd 256gb ssd in the future. I'm going back and forth on my planned upgrade on BF this year, and my current plan is to get 2x256gb in raid just b/c ssd $/gb skyrockets once you get over 256gb. However, if I can find a good 500gb ssd for around the same price as 2x256, I'll go with the larger ssd in a heartbeat.

edit: that Plexor looks cool, but it's a new/untested product, and ALL 6gb/s ssd's other than the intel 510 series have had major issues within the first year of release. And even the intel 320 series had a major bug that needed fixing. I normally go for speed first and other things 2nd, but with ssd's they are all ferrari's/lamborghini's to the hdd's honda civic, so picking for reliability is key.

@palladium: If I had to grab an intel 6gb/s ssd right now, I'd happily grab a 510 series. If the 520 really is a SF-based ssd, it's bound to have issues at some point even with intel's great validation/reliability/testing. Of course, both the 510 and, presumably, the 520 are quite overpriced right now, anyway.

 

[palladium]

@palladium: If I had to grab an intel 6gb/s ssd right now, I'd happily grab a 510 series. If the 520 really is a SF-based ssd, it's bound to have issues at some point even with intel's great validation/reliability/testing. Of course, both the 510 and, presumably, the 520 are quite overpriced right now, anyway.

Apparently it is: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32915024&postcount=14 (someone dissected it)

I just got my 520 a few days ago. Let's hope that you are wrong, for my sake

 

[GTaudiophile]

I have read that SSDs should not be filled beyond 80% capacity or otherwise they become more problematic.

If I need to store at least 110GB of data on C: then I assume that a 128GB SSD is too small for my needs, especially considering that formatted capacity will be lower.

 

[SandEagle]

M4. love it. 220 is a bit high. saw it for. 160 last week...178 at newegg now

 

[GTaudiophile]

I have decided I want a 256GB SSD.

From what I have read, the Corsair Performance Pro may be a better option over the M4.

 

[groberts101]

I have decided I want a 256GB SSD.

From what I have read, the Corsair Performance Pro may be a better option over the M4.

are definately splitting hairs at that level of performance. Would be more of an "enthusiasts" choice to go with that slightly faster toggle equipped drive.

Kinda like picking the optional "big stickies" on the order list for a new performance car. Looks cool(benchmarks) and can help when seriously pushed(heavy multitasking).. but other than that?.. not much notable difference when just tooling around town from an overall performance perspective.

I'd just buy based on what you want to spend. If they are around the same price though?.. I'd always get "big stickies" for when I want to go racing around corners. Always nice to have reserve, right? lol

 

[bryanW1995]

Good post, groberts101. The CPP is marginally faster than the m4, BUT it is newer and you will not notice any difference in the performance. It's literally like buying a viper and putting a k&n air filter on it to get that last 10 hp, but the k&n hasn't been tested as much as the stock filter so you're twice as likely to experience engine troubles. I know that the temptation is there to just go for the fastest/biggest/mostest, but the m4 is truly well-tested and you will likely end up with a much better overall user experience if you go with it.

 

[groberts101]

I agree.. but.. "marginally faster" is purely an interpretation thing from the end users perspective and entirely based on usage scenario's. I know people who now have both and they say that the CPP is a better drive when pushed hard. Have to remember it's not just about benchmarks all the time.

In the end, toggle nand is better, regardless of whether or not you "need" those extra 10 horse's or not. The tweaked and optimised firmware just makes better use of its abilities and is just a bonus if you can get it for similar price points to the M4 or equivelant.

And you of all people should realize that slightly differing implementations of that controller rarely lead to issues. The inner workings of the controller and base code are simply too consistent to even worry about.. "this Marvell drive, is better than that Marvell drive".. at this point. Surely I would agree on that point if it had just been released.. but the chip is far too old to worry about "growing pains" at this juncture.

 

[bryanW1995]

That's a valid argument, and corsair has a strong reputation for quality to protect, and their RMA dept is topnotch. In fact, they have a rep here at ATF who helped me get an RMA on my hx520 in world record time a few years ago (yellowbeard). However, I'd still place greater emphasis in the longer track record of the m4 over the CPP. Maybe not much of one, but at least a little bit, and I'd certainly buy the m4 if it was $30-50 cheaper like it is right now.

 

[philipma1957]

That's a valid argument, and corsair has a strong reputation for quality to protect, and their RMA dept is topnotch. In fact, they have a rep here at ATF who helped me get an RMA on my hx520 in world record time a few years ago (yellowbeard). However, I'd still place greater emphasis in the longer track record of the m4 over the CPP. Maybe not much of one, but at least a little bit, and I'd certainly buy the m4 if it was $30-50 cheaper like it is right now.

YELLOWBEARD did my rma and it was fast. I had a 64gb corsair.

 

[gramboh]

Hmmm. Instead of the 256 Crucial M4, why not 2x of the 128 Plextor M3 in RAID 0?

I've been pondering this, I definitely want 256gb of space, and the way pricing shakes out in Canada right now, it's $50-100 cheaper to do 2x128GB versus 1x256gb. Reason being, the 128gb drives go on sale for $140-170 after rebate constantly, while the 256gb hover around $400 without many sales/rebates for some reason (lower volume sales I guess, less competition/incentive to be aggressive on pricing).

With RAID-0 downsides are:
- No TRIM for now (RST 11.5 final supposedly addressing this)
- Use up both Intel SATA3 ports on motherboard
- Additional potential failure points (RAID controller/array and two drivers versus one) - mitigated with back-up but still something to consider

From what I've seen, you will have significantly faster sequential read speeds on RAID-0 2x 128gb than a single 256gb, but not sure this matters other than in benchmarks? For desktop use, 4k random IOPS seems to matter most?

 

[bryanW1995]

Random reads and writes have the biggest impact for day to day light usage and/or gaming. Sequential reads/writes are more important for real power users.

Regarding Raid 0, if it was $50-100 cheaper then I would definitely go for it, even taking the drawbacks into account. It will overall still be bit faster, just not as much faster as a % as hdd's are.

 

[Obsoleet]

The 510 is a solid drive and one of the very few SSDs to have never received a firmware update for bug fixes. It is expensive however. Too expensive IMO.

The m4 has shown to be a solid drive. It has had issues but these have been swiftly dealt with by Crucial.

The Corsair is a Sandforce drive and thats a whole subject on its own. For me, the platform has had too many problems to recommend to other people.

I would also look at the Samsung 830.

This ^

I recognize many people claim because you use a Samsung 830 somehow your opinion is flawed. Untrue. I use Intel and back this guy up 100%.

Samsung 830 is the way to go. Only other option I'd consider is the Intel 520 which hasn't been officially released yet, but you'll pay big bucks for that.

You can get close-enough QA to Intel going with the 830, toggle NAND, cheaper prices, a SSD toolbox included, insane speeds and all in-house Samsung parts (not going to hurt your reliability, that's for sure).

I couldn't in good faith recommend anything but the Samsung 830 to anyone who hasn't won the lottery, in which case I'd say get the 510.


Nothing wrong with the Crucial M4 or the exceptional support those drives have received, but they are like my SSDs, older and bested by newer models at this point. 830 > M4. I wouldn't buy a G2 today just as I wouldn't buy an M4.
On brands I'm a bit of a sticker on SSD toolboxes, which only Intel and Samsung offer. You get the option to run manual TRIM commands, check on the life of the drive and run other diagnostics. While all drives are in the same ballpark for pricing, not having a slick utility like this (which also updates your firmware) is inexcusable in my mind.

Personally I'm willing to wait for the Intel 520 480GB drive. I'm also willing to pay for what will probably be the end-all ultimate SATA6gb drive we'll ever see until we move to a faster connectivity method.