SSD: Intel 320 or 510?

[Sepp]

I have a 2011 27" iMac, and have been suffering problems (won't go to sleep - shut down...) with my OCZ Vertex SSD from the beginning - eventually it died (after just one year), and now I am looking for a better one, but...

...the brand to go with in terms of reliabiltiy seems to be Intel. I heard lots of good things about the 320. Since the price difference isn't big enough to hold me back from buying a 510 , I would like to make the call on reliability and performance.

The thing is: I am considering getting a next generation MacPro (who knows when), which the Intel should go into, after having served me well inside the iMac.

Would I experience significant performance differences between those two Intel's when using them as a system disk only (OSX and Win7), since just the 510 supports SATA3?

Thanks,

Joe

 

[alust2013]

There is a difference, but the difference between a 320 and 510 is a lot smaller than a hard drive and a 320.

 

[kasakka]

I can't notice any real difference between the Intel X25-M G2 and OCZ Agility 3 on my MBP or my desktop PC, except the OCZ had severe compatibility issues in my PC.

I don't think you can go wrong with either, but the 320 has a more tried-and-true controller.

 

[Weaselboy]

Unless you are doing a lot of work with very large files, you won't notice much if any speed difference between the two. SATA II drives like the 320 seem to have fewer compatibility issues, so for that reason alone I would go with the Intel 320.

 

[Sepp]

What I especially care about are boot times - I jump between both OS's frequently since I have to use SolidWorks 3D...reopening applications is the other important thing.

My concern is that I'd like to be future proof with the purchase of the MacPro.
I am sure working with large files (as you stated already) will benefit from a Sata3 (510) SSD, but I am just trying to find out if boot time and starting applications will be affected much at all, when going with the Sata2 (320).

I would prefer the 320 because of reliabilty and size, unless I can expect quite a better performance with the 510 (on a new MP).

 

[Weaselboy]

What I especially care about are boot times - I jump between both OS's frequently since I have to use SolidWorks 3D...reopening applications is the other important thing.

My concern is that I'd like to be future proof with the purchase of the MacPro.
I am sure working with large files (as you stated already) will benefit from a Sata3 (510) SSD, but I am just trying to find out if boot time and starting applications will be affected much at all, when going with the Sata2 (320).

I would prefer the 320 because of reliabilty and size, unless I can expect quite a better performance with the 510 (on a new MP).

I have a 2011 13" MBP and originally put an Intel 510 SSD (SATA III) in it. Even though I had no trouble with it, I was concerned about long term compatibility so switched to a Samsung 470 SSD (SATA II). I never sat and clocked boot times with a stop watch with either, but just from observation I think the Intel 510 might have booted a couple seconds faster... so maybe 13 seconds instead on 15 seconds with SATA II.

Honestly, without benchmark tools and a stopwatch I really don't think most users could even tell the difference in a blind test.

 

[Sepp]

ok, going to order the 320.

Thanks for your help.