Torqx or Intel X25-M....?

[Stilez]

I'm switching my main drive to SSD, and I'm pretty much narrowed down to Torqx 64GB or Intel X25-M 80GB. Input before I spend would help!

System & use:
XP 64, 8GB ram, quad core Q6600. SSD would be a system drive only. User files and any page file would all be on a separate drive and browser cache on ramdisk.

It gets used for massive multitasking - running a couple of VMs, a 2 GB browser session, Kaspersky on maximum (which is a heavy duty scanner), voice to text, and a bunch of IDE tools and other apps. Massive excel spreadsheets and browser use plus virtualization and "anything else I might want to run". The system usually idles at <10&#37; processor use (with occasional periods at 30-50%) and 5-7 GB RAM used, but there's always background processes. It's got plenty of headroom for periods of peak activity.

SSD choice:
I haven't used SSD before and I'd like it to last at least 6 years, so I'm hoping I have the right idea:

1. As a system drive, the "small random write when not-new" speed should probably matter more than any other speed stats.
   
2. As XP lacks trim support, the SSD has to handle dirty pages well.
   
3. The system is only 16 GB and much of that will be system hotfix stuff which is static, so a 64 - 80 GB drive should give SSD plenty of spare cells to work with. Wiper or garbage handling might only be needed every few days.
   
4. Most reviews state that Intel's X25-M G2 is far and away the best for small random write usage, and also doesn't degrade much from dirty pages. It carries a 3 year warranty.
   
5. Against that, the Torqx 64GB seems almost as good in most ways. It's also way faster on small random writes than my current HD (Seagate Barracuda ES range) even if not as fast as the Intel. It also carries a 10 year warranty.
   
6. I've considered Transcend, OCZ and Supertalent, but the market seems split into Intel controllers (X25-M) v. Indilinx/Barefoot and similar performance controllers (of which Torqx is a decent/strong performer and by far the longest warrantied lifetime).

Is my logic about right? Should I get Intel (for the small file r/w speed), or Torqx (still fairly fast speed, and a warranty that means I can count on being able to use it in a spare machine in 5 or 8 years time)?

Advice and thoughts welcomed.

 

[lsv]

I got the Intel. I say get the Intel 🙂

 

[Zap]

Kaspersky on maximum (which is a heavy duty scanner)

What does this mean? You have an anti-virus that you've set to scan continuously?

I haven't used SSD before and I'd like it to last at least 6 years

Nobody really knows how long these SSDs will last because none were available 6 years ago. The estimate is that they should have decent lifetimes. BTW, 6 years is pretty long. I don't think any of my computers have drives older than 3 years. My work computer has a drive that is around 5 years old (an old WD 160GB SATA) and it is slow as shit. I'm getting ready to upgrade it to a WD Black 640GB. My point is that 6 years from now whatever SSD you buy now will be considered ancient and slow.

The TorqX would still be under warranty, though. :awe:

As a system drive, the "small random write when not-new" speed should probably matter more than any other speed stats.
...
Intel's X25-M G2 is far and away the best for small random write usage, and also doesn't degrade much from dirty pages.

If this is what is important to you (and it sounds like it) then the Intel drive would be the best choice of the two.

 

[Stilez]

What does this mean? You have an anti-virus that you've set to scan continuously?

It's an active computer running hundreds of network connections, probably lots of disk and file access. All network traffic and all file access is scanned. So my impression is that software is probably doing a lot of work. I don't know exactly how much system drive access it translates into, but figured it was worth mentioning to give an idea of the system concerned.

I haven't used SSD before and I'd like it to last at least 6 years

Nobody really knows how long these SSDs will last because none were available 6 years ago. The estimate is that they should have decent lifetimes. BTW, 6 years is pretty long. I don't think any of my computers have drives older than 3 years. My work computer has a drive that is around 5 years old (an old WD 160GB SATA) and it is slow as shit. I'm getting ready to upgrade it to a WD Black 640GB. My point is that 6 years from now whatever SSD you buy now will be considered ancient and slow.

Right now I'm using a system drive (Barracuda ES 750) from early 2007, and also a 300GB and 250 GB drive from around 2006 and a 120GB temp drive from 2003, none of which are showing significant SMART issues yet. I use the older ones for backup and platform tests, but I do still have use for them. I agree in 5 years whatever we have now will be long-outdated and primitive. But somewhere I'll still have a small media server or backup system that doesn't need anything more than this, and it'll be nice if the SSD is still working. If several companies warranty SSD for 5 years and one for 10 years, then they've committed to it working for that length of time if I can use it.

If this is what is important to you (and it sounds like it) then the Intel drive would be the best choice of the two.

This is what I want to check, having just read editorials and reviews and analyses of them, but never actually used them myself. Does the logic make sense? Have I got the right idea and so on? Is my interpretation and approach reasonable? How would others balance speed vs. warranty? What are the real differences between these two drives from others who've tried them? Am I right to assess it as "Intel vs. the rest" when considering a system drive, and is Torqx a good choice for "the rest" if so? That's the kind of thing I'm hoping to double check before spending 🙂

 

[=Wendy=]

It's an active computer running hundreds of network connections, probably lots of disk and file access. All network traffic and all file access is scanned. So my impression is that software is probably doing a lot of work. I don't know exactly how much system drive access it translates into, but figured it was worth mentioning to give an idea of the system concerned.

For kind of usage pattern. I would personally go for an SLC based drive rather than the two MLC models you listed.

 

[beginner99]

For kind of usage pattern. I would personally go for an SLC based drive rather than the two MLC models you listed.

depends if it's read or write access. Read should not be an issue. But tons of small writes are probably the worst for an ssd concerning that it should last long.

I would still go OCZ/Indlix with XP because they have this tool to manually trim your ssd. No need for win 7.

Were do you have the VM's? Do they need to benefit from the speed? I mean they don't if they're not on the ssd. So if you work on the vm, probably best if it is on the ssd itself. meaning 80 gb would not be enough.

 

[Axon]

INTEL OMFG

::hyperventilates::

::calms down::

Uh, so yeah, the Intel. 😛 SLC for your needs if you can swing it.

 

[Stilez]

For kind of usage pattern. I would personally go for an SLC based drive rather than the two MLC models you listed.

Sadly 64-80GB SLC isn't an option for me (way out of budget). I figure that MLC with a good reputation for manufacturer's quality, or a long warranty, will be my best way to go. It's a system volume only so if it falls over, it's not going to take any data with it.

depends if it's read or write access. Read should not be an issue. But tons of small writes are probably the worst for an ssd concerning that it should last long.

I would still go OCZ/Indlix with XP because they have this tool to manually trim your ssd. No need for win 7.

Were do you have the VM's? Do they need to benefit from the speed? I mean they don't if they're not on the ssd. So if you work on the vm, probably best if it is on the ssd itself. meaning 80 gb would not be enough.

The VMs themselves are on a separate drive (with any other user data I can throw there).