Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Better SSD than Intel X 25 M 160 GB?
- Thread starter solarisc
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
According to the specs (which are mostly very accurate in Intel's case) the G3 will run circles around every drive that is out there right now.
However, Sandforce will release their new controller at the same time (roughly) and which will be even faster.
If you want a drive now, get a Sandforce 1200 based drive, like the OCZ Vertex2(E), Corsair Force series, or a OWC SSD. They are faster than the G2.
However, Sandforce will release their new controller at the same time (roughly) and which will be even faster.
If you want a drive now, get a Sandforce 1200 based drive, like the OCZ Vertex2(E), Corsair Force series, or a OWC SSD. They are faster than the G2.
If you're looking for something right now, I'd definitely give the OWC Sandforce-based SSDs a serious look - I just for one for my 2009 MacBook Air, and it's astoundingly fast.
1) The real life 'speed' difference between the current Intel X-25 drives and the faster SandForce based drives is nowhere as significant as it looks on paper
2) The X-25 is probably the most reliable SSD on the market, and surely is the most time-tested and proven
3) The Vertex line has nowhere near the reliability of the X-25
4) The upcoming Intel drives will IIRC be faster, but fast is not the goal, as it is trying to bring the price down (IIRC G3 will be about the same are current SandForce driven models in read, and slightly slower in write speeds)
You really cannot go wrong with the Intel X-25. It is a great SSD and your odds of having any complications with it are smaller than other SSDs. You won't really get better in the reliability sense, and wear-leveling issues are dramatically overstated. The only real difference between the X-25 and other drives is theoretical speed. In terms of impact resistance, latency, power consumption, and resistance to the elements, all SSDs are rather close in other than for the purpose of playing benchmark wars, the differences are probably negligible. Certain Kingston models are Intel X-25's rebranded and you can sometimes find them for less. I've been playing around with a few SSDs of differently rated speeds and thus far, the differences I have found have been far smaller than the benchmark stats would suggest.
If you want the fastest drives, the Vertex 2 line and OWC Mercury Pro Extreme is probably the fastest. It's worth noting that the Crucial C300, despite being rated lower, is probably even faster than the above. Once again, the tasks done by average users, however, is not going to max out a SSD (usually) and individual differences are smaller than paper stats reflect.
2) The X-25 is probably the most reliable SSD on the market, and surely is the most time-tested and proven
3) The Vertex line has nowhere near the reliability of the X-25
4) The upcoming Intel drives will IIRC be faster, but fast is not the goal, as it is trying to bring the price down (IIRC G3 will be about the same are current SandForce driven models in read, and slightly slower in write speeds)
You really cannot go wrong with the Intel X-25. It is a great SSD and your odds of having any complications with it are smaller than other SSDs. You won't really get better in the reliability sense, and wear-leveling issues are dramatically overstated. The only real difference between the X-25 and other drives is theoretical speed. In terms of impact resistance, latency, power consumption, and resistance to the elements, all SSDs are rather close in other than for the purpose of playing benchmark wars, the differences are probably negligible. Certain Kingston models are Intel X-25's rebranded and you can sometimes find them for less. I've been playing around with a few SSDs of differently rated speeds and thus far, the differences I have found have been far smaller than the benchmark stats would suggest.
If you want the fastest drives, the Vertex 2 line and OWC Mercury Pro Extreme is probably the fastest. It's worth noting that the Crucial C300, despite being rated lower, is probably even faster than the above. Once again, the tasks done by average users, however, is not going to max out a SSD (usually) and individual differences are smaller than paper stats reflect.
I like Intel though I think OWC has the best SSDs out there based on what I hear, plus they're made in the USA and for that alone I'm willing to go with them.
epic fail
Oh and op look on anandtech for ssd news and info, lots of useful info there.
Even though I have an Intel SSD I think the best right now is the OWC SSD despite the sleep/hibernation issues. The big selling point of the new Intel SSDs is supposedly the price point not the read/write speeds. Maybe the delay is because intel is upping the performance or so I hope. If OWC is able to deliver on the optimization tools they promised then it is the undisputed winner for SSDs for Mac.
I love my OWC and they have confirmed that a joint effort between them and SandForce is in effect to work on the sleep issue. They also test the heck out of their drives before shipping them to ensure they meet a quality standard. Review wise, almost everyone loves them, but the Intel X-25 has far more reviews. Reliability wise, the OWC appears to be golden and its wear-leveling software is supposed to be among the best of the best...thus far that seems to be the case; obviously we won't know for sure until a few more years pass but as of now, they seem to be the golden egg from the silver turkey
(what the hell did he just say?)It's also worth noting that the first 25nm drive, the Crucial C400, apparently has a shorter (theoretical) lifespan than the 'older' 34nm but who knows...this makes me wonder if the longevity of the newer Intel drives may actually be less than the current
I actually own both. An intel x-25m 80gb G2 and a agility 2 64gb. Spec wise the agility is supposed to rock the pants off of the intel drive. But in my own benchmarks, and actual timing of usage (boot times etc and heck bootcamp WEI scores) the intel is faster in practical use.
The main reason though is reliability. the OCZ drives seem to have a higher failure rate than intel drives. Heck all the sandforce drives seem to, due to it being newer at the moment. The intel drives had the issues before, but they seemed to have been worked out. So if you want fastest numbers the sandforce drives are good.
If you're worried about an SSD failing and losing all your info, and don't back up the stuff.... well intel is the best bet.
The intel is VERY reliable. (Early 2008 MBP)
I am using an 80 gig postville for more than one year now and it is as fast as on the first day.
Updating the firmware is very easy (you don't need windows to be installed eg)
I am using an 80 gig postville for more than one year now and it is as fast as on the first day.
Updating the firmware is very easy (you don't need windows to be installed eg)