[3xVicious]

Hey everyone, I'm in a position where I can either keep my current Intel 510, or get a Vertex 3 / Micron C400.

The question is, is it worth it?

I bought the Intel 510 because of the reliability, but the speed of the 510 is a bigger disappointment then I imagined (Benchmarks Below). Is it worth it to switch to Vertex 3 for the performance, even when OCZ has been acting shady recently? Should I go for the C400, another let down in SSDs? Or better yet, what about the C300 the only other 34nm SATA III Drive? I heard it causes issues on Intel SATA Chipsets.

Or do you guys think I should just keep my 510 with better support and 34nm? Exchanging it would cost me nothing, in fact I'd probably save some money if I go with a C300 or C400, though at this point, money isn't a concern.

Keep in my that I will be utilizing a SATA 6/GBs and I'm looking for a 120 GB drive.

 

[rui-no-onna]

What's your purpose in buying the SSD? Benchmarking? If so, feel free to switch to a different brand/controller. Realistically speaking, you're unlikely to notice any difference between those three in day to day usage.

 

[3xVicious]

No, I won't be using it for Benchmarking, but when I see people posting 9 Second Boot Times with a C300 while I'm barely hitting 15...

 

[kckyle]

you can hit 9 second boot time with a c300?

 

[3xVicious]

Could use some more suggestions before I make a decision. I have a very short window of opportunity. Is the Vertex 3 worth the hassle of dealing with OCZ? I have nothing against the company personally, but I was disappointed about their lack of business ethics and while they eventually sorted out the whole 28nm 34nm fiasco, it took far too long.

I'd be getting an additional warranty on my drive, so failure rate shouldn't be a major concern.

 

[vipergod2000]

I've been waiting a while for my upgrade and took the plunge last weekend with my Sandy Bridge system (well, due to my P45 mobo dying out on my Core 2 Duo system). I initially was planning on upgrading later in the year when the LGA 2011 comes out, but who knows, this might be a blessing in disguise, especially with Crysis 2 released - I wouldn't let myself play it with such a dated system with a 9600GT.

Anyway, sorry to hijack your thread, been browsing OCnet forever and just felt the urge to start an account since I have a nice system to show off in my sig!

After reading the anandtech review of the Vertex 3, it kind of sealed the deal for me on choosing which SATA 6Gbps SSD to go with to use as my OS + SW drive. All else will be on internal large WD Blacks, and Backup will be done on my external Seagate 2TB of important documents, work related, etc so I can be mobile.

I'd say the review speaks enough about the superiority of the Vertex 3, but since you've already gotten the 510, why not just stick with it? Its not like the performance isn't up there, as any SSD is a big step ahead of a HDD. However, review details might show that the X-25M still outperforms the 510, and it may still even 'feel' faster than the 510.

One thing for sure is you're above the 3Gbps limit and moving into the territory of the new 6Gbps (which I honestly didn't forsee its saturation come so prematurely - in the case of the Vertex 3).

People rarely copy large files from one place to another on an SSD unless they're doing some cleanup to be more orderly in their organisation of folders. To me the bulk of sequential performance will be seen when transferring to external devices - which I don't think having an SSD would produce a significant impact (unless you use an external SSD as storage and using e-sata or USB 3.0 to utilise it).

Around the region of 4K random R/W should be your area of concern if you're looking for an improved 'feel' of your computer - which I think the 510 should suffice, but it's like owning a GTX 570 vs a GTX 580 (disregard the price - but you're good in both cases, just that the vertex takes you that tad bit more).

Comments are welcome

 

[cp2010]

Hi guys,

I've got a 510 250gb coming in. I'm still on a x58 board with only 3GB SATA, and I don't plan on buying a SATA 6G controller card.

I hope I've made the right choice!

 

[scottb75]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cp2010;13396587
Hi guys,

I've got a 510 250gb coming in. I'm still on a x58 board with only 3GB SATA, and I don't plan on buying a SATA 6G controller card.

I hope I've made the right choice!

It should be an okay choice, though to be honest if you are going to stick with SATA II I think the Intel 320 series would have been a better choice.

 

[ChocoboLIVE]

Aren't boottime count through windows logo pop up? My does just 2 sec after the logo formed. With the OCZ Agility and windows 7 24/7 usage ofcourse.

 

[Anekin007]

im still new to ssd but isnt running the intel RST driver better then the MS? try downloading the intel RST and run the bench again. for read you wont notice anything. its a split second difference if you get the vertex 3. how are people getting the 9 second boot? the windows logo itself is about 9 seconds. after bios screen to all 8 start up programs mine boots up in 20 seconds. how many times are you going to boot up your system? i usually keep mine on most of the day or on sleep. people over over hyping the benches too much. programs and games loads about 2-5 seconds faster than when i had the WD Black. switching ssd to ssd you wont notice any loading difference. write on the other hand much faster compare to a standard hd. switching the 510 to vertex 3 will only be couple seconds faster. again its up to you if you want to switch but if you do get the Max IOPS not the standard. theres a promo code for $30 off right now on newegg for the max iops.

 

[Balthazor]

I recently installed a couple of 510s... and then read reviews. Dumb me! But it isn't worth switching, in my opinion. But next upgrade I'll look before I leap, certainly.

Seriously a fraction of a ms access time difference, or a bit different MB/s read or write time for random files, I don't think I'll notice it enough to actually change out my drives or buy new ones, at least at the moment.

 

[cp2010]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balthazor;13407343
I recently installed a couple of 510s... and then read reviews. Dumb me! But it isn't worth switching, in my opinion. But next upgrade I'll look before I leap, certainly.

Seriously a fraction of a ms access time difference, or a bit different MB/s read or write time for random files, I don't think I'll notice it enough to actually change out my drives or buy new ones, at least at the moment.

Are you using 510 in singles or are you raiding them? The speed difference between a 510 and a HDD would still be noticeable, no?

 

[cp2010]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottb75;13405306
It should be an okay choice, though to be honest if you are going to stick with SATA II I think the Intel 320 series would have been a better choice.

Yeah, I was thinking about it too. The 300GB 320 is actually cheaper than the 510 and has better random 4k read/write speeds, but if I move to SATA 3 in the future, the 510 would benefit more. I dunno, it's a toss up. But at least I hope I will notice great speed gains through the 510 over my current WD Black.

 

[Balthazor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cp2010;13408488
Are you using 510 in singles or are you raiding them? The speed difference between a 510 and a HDD would still be noticeable, no?

Oh yeah, the 510 will still be night and day when comparing to any conventional HDD.

I'm comparing the 510 to my X-25M drives, though, and I was expecting this 'new model SATA 3 drive' to tromp it - this was before I read reviews and then did some comparison testing myself.

Knowing what I know now, I would recommend you consider the 320s from Intel, or even the X-25M or new Vertex 3 series, because the 510's sequential performance is the only thing going for it. And sequential performance doesn't really mean a whole lot for SDDs, at least for most users.

 

[Balthazor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cp2010;13408511
Yeah, I was thinking about it too. The 300GB 320 is actually cheaper than the 510 and has better random 4k read/write speeds, but if I move to SATA 3 in the future, the 510 would benefit more. I dunno, it's a toss up. But at least I hope I will notice great speed gains through the 510 over my current WD Black.

You really wouldn't benefit a whole lot from the 510 on SATA 3 in the future. Unless Intel releases a firmware update that improves random performance, I think the 320 series is a better bet.

You'll only see SATA 3 speeds on sequential data, and sequential data isn't that important in looking at day-to-day performance for most users.

 

[Balthazor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cp2010;13408488
Are you using 510 in singles or are you raiding them? The speed difference between a 510 and a HDD would still be noticeable, no?

Oh, and sorry, I missed your first question; I'm using them all singly.

 

[cp2010]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balthazor;13408780
You really wouldn't benefit a whole lot from the 510 on SATA 3 in the future. Unless Intel releases a firmware update that improves random performance, I think the 320 series is a better bet.

You'll only see SATA 3 speeds on sequential data, and sequential data isn't that important in looking at day-to-day performance for most users.

Yeah, I probably made a mistake getting the 510 at near MRSP. But anyways, it's 34nm tech instead of the 25nm stuff found in the 320, maybe that's an advantage in terms of how many write cycles I can do. But then again the 510 has a Marvell controller rather than an Intel one, so that might be trouble in the future.