Win7 + (120GB OWC Mercury Extreme Pro) -VS- (Intel X25-M G2 160GB)

[ShizKani]

(120GB OWC Mercury Extreme Pro) -VS- (Intel X25-M G2 160GB)

For the past few weeks I've been trying to decide on what SDD to get for my first ever SSD... Mainly for my Win7 Ultimate x64 OS Drive & Applications..

I've read and seen so many reviews and bench mark tests lately for so many SSD's that my head is still spinning with all the mumbo jumbo about what drive is the best of the best for this and that ect ect blah blah blah..

I've posted on a few other forums asking for advice and I mostly get: just go with Intel since they are the more reliable and a trusted name in the business ect ect..

Well I was just about set to take the plunge and go with an (Intel X25-M G2 80GB SSD)...

But then I discovered (OWC) and their line of (Mercury Extreme Pro SSD's)..
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/internal_storage/Mercury_Extreme_SSD_Sandforce/Solid_State_Pro

Well I started reading the Awards & Reviews on the bottom of their page and the (Real World SSD Performance - OWC Mercury Extreme vs Intel 160GB G2Severe Duty Test) really impressed me..
http://macperformanceguide.com/SSD-RealWorld-SevereDuty2.html

Well im not sure if that review was biased or not but I read another review here which also seemed to make me lean more towards these OWC SSD's: http://thessdreview.blogspot.com/2010/05/ssd-review-owc-mercury-extreme-pro-re.html

So I was just wondering what do you guys think about these OWC SSD's..
They seem to be the only SSD on the market right now that stand by their claim that "Unlike most SSDs on the market today, the Mercury Pro family uses advanced DuraWrite™ wear-leveling and block management technologies to keep Read/Write performance at peak while others see performance fall.." even after the SSD has been Filled & Seasoned as outlined in this performance review here: http://macperformanceguide.com/SSD-RealWorld.html


So What SSD would you guys recommend getting..?
They're both around the same $400 Price range..
But the OWC SSD seems like it would be the better one to get given its ability to still keep its performance up even after its been filled & seasoned..

So whats your guys take on all this..?

 

[Emulex]

1. does the controller use ram for write-back cache? if so is it capacitor/battery backed up? (if no - run !)
2. This is why the X25-E will have a super-capacitor backed cache on the new models - but they are playing it safe.

analogy: what good is a 500hp honda turbo B22 in a civic if you don't upgrade the brakes? when things go wrong - and they do - you need a reasonable safetynet.

Then ask:
Who makes the controller chip? Do they have the same track record as intel at making chips? Amd surely doesn't have the same track record and that shows. wait amd has been around for a long time.

Do they even make their own controller? If not they rely on others to make the firmware and fix production bugs?

I had a production x25-m fail recently. after using my magic code - next day air a new one (they do not do refurb at intel - new only due to wear). with prepaid return label.

Do they offer comparable service? Fresh new drive for any sort of issue - advance ship next day with free prepaid return?

Speed is cool but service reliability and ability to purchase products over their lifecycle is very important too!

 

[flamenko]

I can comment on the Extreme Pro RE however I cannot comment on the Pro just yet. I did the review for the SSD Review and just sent it back actually. I can say that it is the only drive that I have used in the past 3 years that does not suffer any performance degradation when full. I ran the heck out of it as well and I have to admit that there was none as a result of its aging or 'seasoning' as many like to say now.

It has the SandForce controller which is right there with Intel nowadays and is showing well in different manufactured SSDs overall, given exception to a few firmware updates required by the similar OCZ.

To date...that I am aware of, there has been no negative with the OWC drive whatsoever and I have to say I enjoyed playing with it. I might look at it this way when I am considering the purchase in this case....

The price of the Intel 160Gb and the Extreme Pro RE 100Gb are almost identical. With the Intel most only fill to the area of 60% (100Gb) because they dont want the performance degradation. With the OWC...we know you can fill it completely (100Gb).

So for the same price....and the same capacity which one will fill it, would you choose the Intel or the OWC with just about the best overall performance results around?

Remember now....I am speaking of the Pro RE and not the Pro. The difference between the two is a 3 year warranty vice 5 and the RE also has 28Gb over provisioning whereas the Pro may give you some of that space back (120Gb I believe).

I have received the Pro but am out of town for a few weeks so cannot test it but I am going to bet that, because of the lesser over provisioning, we might see performance degradation again when filled but... I might be wrong.

The review is going to be a comparison between the two and I am hoping to have it done by July if that helps u at all.

Good luck!

 

[ShizKani]

Thanks for the info flamenko..
So would you recommend getting the OWC over Intel then.. For using the SSD as a Win7 OS + Apps Drive..?

This review here seems to be testing the New and After Seasoning performance of the OWC Pro Series.. But its the 240GB model that they're using which appears to be a new product as of May 2010..
How new are the 120GB Pro Models..?
http://macperformanceguide.com/SSD-RealWorld-BeforeAfter-OWCMercuryPro.html
http://macperformanceguide.com/SSD-RealWorld-SevereDuty2.html

Are there any other differences between the 240GB and the 120GB Pro models other than their sizes that would allow one to out perform the other..?

flamenko..
I take it you own a (OWC Mercury Extreme Pro RE 100Gb) since you have it posted in your signature..
How long have you used it for and how is it still holding up now..?
Dont you also own a 160GB Intel SSD as well.. How does it compare to your OWC..?
Are you using the OWC as an OS Boot Drive or a Storage/Scratch Disk..?
After you format the (OWC Mercury Extreme Pro RE 100Gb) with NTFS how much GB do have left..?

Is there anything else you can inform me about to help me compare and decide which of these 2 SSD's to choose from to purchase..?

Thanks again for your help..

 

[flamenko]

Yes... I would choose the OWC Mercury Extreme Pro RE over the Intel because of performance and there is no degradation issues whatsoever however I cannot comment on the pro model yet (120Gb) as I haven't tested it. Thank you for the links however I most likely won't look at the other reviews until I have completed mine...

The OWC is the boot drive and after you format the 100Gb OWC u have somewhere around 94Gb left...

 

[Old Hippie]

I had a production x25-m fail recently. after using my magic code - next day air a new one (they do not do refurb at intel - new only due to wear). with prepaid return label.

Did you forget to mention that service costs 25.00 or is yours free?

I've had two fail in the past three weeks (50.00) and now a third one (an RMA) has failed and these RMAs looked repacked to me......AKA refurb.

These are 80GB G2s.

 

[ShizKani]

So out of curiosity I was just wondering if anyone knows why these OWC SSD's are the only SSD's on the market right now that are able to withstand performance degradation after the drive has been filled and seasoned..??

They are using the same SandForce SF1200 Processor Controller as many other SSD's out there are currently using..!!

Except OWC Over Provisions their drive by 28% which is allocated for better data management, to maintain the drive's overall high-performance level by using RAISE – which provides real time data redundancy, ECC Error Correction, and reserve cell space and SandForces DuraClass™ technology with Ultra-efficient Block Management & Wear Leveling which offers higher endurance, performance, and power efficiency..

That being said...why dont any other SSD's out there have or claim this ability yet to keep their performance up without degradation after the drive has been filled and seasoned..?

What is so special about these OWC SSD's that they are the only ones that are able to overcome this obstacle so far..?

Are there any contenders out there that can compete with these SSD's or give them a run for their money on the same performance levels..??

What have you internetz.. bring forth your best competitors and let the challenges begin.. :awe::awe:

 

[kevinqian]

I think you are reading into that glowing review a lil too much. Any of the other SandForce drives should bring equal performance as the OWC. Examples include Corsair Force, OCZ Vertex 2/Agility 2, Patriot Inferno, Super Talent TeraDrives etc. They are all essentially clones of each other. To select bewteen any of these Sandforce drives bascially comes down to 2 things: warranty support and price. All other things being equal. If you want to maintain performance when full, stick with the 50/100/200gb versions. If you don't mind a minor drop in performance (<5&#37, then get the 60/120/240gb versions. That's it.

fyi, Newegg had a deal for an OCZ Agility 2 120gb for $240 after rebate last week. Keep an eye on slickdeals and an SSD deal always pops up every week.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3690/...dforce-more-capacity-at-no-performance-loss/2

Here's a good reading for both you and flemenko. I know both of you are very interested in performance when full. It seems the Intel G2 drives actually perform better than SF drives when full. Also note the performance diff btw the 2 overprovisioned SF drives are essentially the same.

 

[flamenko]

Yes but the unfortunate thing is that nobody has posted even one Crystal score to support the Vertex 2 and other drives. I wish I could afford one or get one from OCZ. I have had at least 3 others say they will do it and post the results but nobody has as of yet.

Its a simple thing....fill the SSD and run a Crystal with a larger and smaller file size...

Calling all Vertex 2 owners!!! Anyone interested here?

 

[FishAk]

“...why these OWC SSD's are the only SSD's on the market right now that are able to withstand performance degradation after the drive has been filled and seasoned..??”


The answer is simple enough, and you said part of it yourself.


1. You can't actually fill the SandForce drive. Over-provisioning means that even when “full”, the drive is only partially filled.


2. SandForce uses compression, and who knows what else, that's invisible to both the user and OS. So, even though 93GB of data has been accounted for in it's 128GB of flash, and the drive is “full”, less than 93GB has been actually written.

 

[MagickMan]

I have a 160GB Intel G2 and a 120GB Agility 2 and I can't tell any real world difference between them. They're both insanely fast.

 

[kevinqian]

Yes but the unfortunate thing is that nobody has posted even one Crystal score to support the Vertex 2 and other drives. I wish I could afford one or get one from OCZ. I have had at least 3 others say they will do it and post the results but nobody has as of yet.

Its a simple thing....fill the SSD and run a Crystal with a larger and smaller file size...

Calling all Vertex 2 owners!!! Anyone interested here?

I think the Anand article I linked to should provide all the info you are looking for. Regardless if you are looking for Vertex 2 or any other SF drive, they should all perform like those listed on his article.

I wouldn't count on any particular user's Crystal results as a definitive answer to your curiosities. I would much rather rely on Anand's more rigorous testing methodologies and results.

 

[erdemali]

Its a simple thing....fill the SSD and run a Crystal with a larger and smaller file size...

Calling all Vertex 2 owners!!! Anyone interested here?

What is the point?
I think you have 160Gb as well. Why not you fill it up and test it instead of asking around.
What is with filling it up anyway? it will start using the spare area, that's all.