• 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.

Intel 320 40GB vs. Crucial M4 64GB

X

XX55XX

Member
I plan to buy a boot drive for my main rig soon. Which one of these options should I go for? I know Intel is more "reliable", but Crucial's drives post some impressive numbers. The Crucial drive also offers more space and a better cost/storage ratio than the Intel drive. However, I will need to buy a SATA cable and a bracket, while the Intel drive comes with those things.

The Intel drive is $100, while the M4 is a $115.

I prefer Intel, but will I notice the M4's extra speed in everyday use? Note, this will be a boot drive.
 
If you had to choose between those two, it'd be the Crucial 64GB. However, I wouldn't buy either. If you're in the U.S. and can wait or check for sales long enough you can get a higher capacity drive of either models with more well rounded performance. 40GBs gets tight quickly... even in a netbook where most of it's data on an external USB. 64GB is better, but the 64GB M4 variant isn't enough of a speed king compared to others in it's price range, unlike it's 128GB brother.
 
Actually, the Crucial M4 is more reliable than the Intel 320. A 40GB SSD will only be good for the OS and your most important programs, while you'll be able to store more programs and some of your most played games on the M4.
 
LOL_Wut_Axel said:
Actually, the Crucial M4 is more reliable than the Intel 320. A 40GB SSD will only be good for the OS and your most important programs, while you'll be able to store more programs and some of your most played games on the M4.
Click to expand...

capacity is not same as reliability.
 
LOL_Wut_Axel said:
I mentioned reliability first to get it out of the way. Then, I focused on what makes the most difference: the capacity.

Can't believe this is difficult to grasp.
Click to expand...
It is, since you did not supply any proof of your claim that "crucial is more reliable".
Do you maybe have long-term reliability data that compares two? I bet not because both are fairly new products.
 
postmortemIA said:
It is, since you did not supply any proof of your claim that "crucial is more reliable".
Do you maybe have long-term reliability data that compares two? I bet not because both are fairly new products.
Click to expand...

As of now, it is. Intel 320 had the 8MB bug, and the M4 as of now has been almost flawless when it comes to reliability.
 
Last edited:
LOL_Wut_Axel said:
As of now, it is. Intel 320 had the 8MB bug, and the M4 as of now has been almost flawless when it comes to reliability.
Click to expand...

Hasn't that been fixed, though?

I don't know... Maybe I'll research for another week and come back.

Then again, those M4s are just $100 on Amazon right now, and even if I have to purchase a SATA cable and a bracket for them, it would be a very sweet deal.
 
XX55XX said:
]Hasn't that been fixed, though?
[/B]
I don't know... Maybe I'll research for another week and come back.

Then again, those M4s are just $100 on Amazon right now, and even if I have to purchase a SATA cable and a bracket for them, it would be a very sweet deal.
Click to expand...

Intel says a new firmware fixes the issue, but still worth noting since it ships with the original firmware. The only real benefit Intel has is better encryption, but that's important mostly to business users. The Crucial M4 has much higher sequential and random read speeds, especially with the new firmware they released that delivers around 20% more performance in those aspects than the older one (as long as you're on SATA 6Gbps). There's also the issue of capacity, which I explained a bit earlier. You're giving up 24GB on an already capacity-limited SSD. You'll be left to use the 320 for the OS and your most important applications, while you could put most of your applications and a game or two on the M4. I think going with the M4 is a very easy choice.
 
LOL_Wut_Axel said:
Intel says a new firmware fixes the issue, but still worth noting since it ships with the original firmware. The only real benefit Intel has is better encryption, but that's important mostly to business users. The Crucial M4 has much higher sequential and random read speeds, especially with the new firmware they released that delivers around 20% more performance in those aspects than the older one (as long as you're on SATA 6Gbps). There's also the issue of capacity, which I explained a bit earlier. You're giving up 24GB on an already capacity-limited SSD. You'll be left to use the 320 for the OS and your most important applications, while you could put most of your applications and a game or two on the M4. I think going with the M4 is a very easy choice.
Click to expand...

I've read some guides and reviews indicating that 40GB is enough, so long as you disable hibernation, Windows Backup, and set the page file accordingly. Windows 7 64-bit needs a bare minimum of 6GB-7GB, and I personally don't have any huge programs (I mostly use freeware and open-source software).

Eh. I am still extremely partial towards Intel for some reason. The inner fanboy within tells me that my first SSD should be an Intel one.
 
XX55XX said:
I've read some guides and reviews indicating that 40GB is enough, so long as you disable hibernation, Windows Backup, and set the page file accordingly. Windows 7 64-bit needs a bare minimum of 6GB-7GB, and I personally don't have any huge programs (I mostly use freeware and open-source software).

Eh. I am still extremely partial towards Intel for some reason. The inner fanboy within tells me that my first SSD should be an Intel one.
Click to expand...

So you'd rather go through many hassles just because it's an Intel SSD? Ask for advice regarding choosing products if you're willing to be open-minded. If you already have a bias in favor of Intel, then go with the slower and less spacious 320.
 
64gb Crucial hands down. Faster and more storage space makes it a no brainer. Plus, you can get it for $93 at Microcenter or $99 thru Amazon.

Recently got a 128gb M4 Crucial SSD for $160. No hassles and it's running great.
 
My vote is the M4. I just was looking to purchase my 3rd SSD today. I didn't really have a budget in mind I just wanted the fast and reliable drive. I ended up with the M4 over all the other options.

The reliability / price / performance seemed the best for my money.
 
I wouldn't buy a drive of that capacity but they're both good drives. I'd recommend the drive with better $/GB though. To say that either one is more or less reliable than the other would be completely laughable though, unless you had the exact returns figures from both companies and all of the other information they have on hand.
 
I would be wary about buying such a small drive. Budget er no, your gonna find a way to fill up a 40 GB drive too fast. I would save my money and buy at least 64 GB when I could afford it.
If you want Intel, get Intel. You should buy something that makes you happy. If that is Intel, pay what Intel wants. If that is saving $$, I agree with DirkGently1, buy whatever has the best $/GB ratio.

Bear in mind that both drives use the exact same NAND chips and rest comfortably that whichever drive you choose, they are almost the same.
Micron and Intel have a joint venture, IMFT, that produces NAND Flash for both companies as well as their customers. Micron gets 51% of IMFT production for its own use and resale, while Intel gets the remaining 49%.


Micron is mostly a chip and OEM brand, Crucial is its consumer memory/storage arm. Both divisions shipped an SSD called the C300 last year. It was the first 6Gbps SATA SSD we tested and while it posted some great numbers, the drive launched to a very bumpy start.


A few firmware revisions later and the C300 was finally looking good from a reliability perspective. Although recently I have heard reports of performance issues with the latest 006 firmware, the drive has been working well for me thus far. It just goes to show you that company size alone isn't an indication of compatibility and reliability.
Click to expand...
from Anand's review of the Crucial m4
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4253/the-crucial-m4-micron-c400-ssd-review
 
The Crucial m4 with the latest firm is one cool drive.
Crucial also has a great rma system if needed.
The Intel 320 40GB is on the the small size.
On my m4 pc win7 + sp1 + excel 2010 = 20GB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top