Intel X25-M 80GB -VS- OCZ Vertex 2 60GB

Xx-SIRIS-xX

Distinguished
Jan 9, 2010
23
0
18,510
0
Searching for the Best OS/Boot SSD I've narrowed it down to these 2 SSD's

OCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD2-2VTXE60G 2.5" 60GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227550


Intel X25-M Mainstream 2.5" 80GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010150636%2050001157%201421445225%201421330854&name=2.5%22


Now I ask you SSD Experts here, which SSD is the: Better, Most Dependable, Reliable, Stable, SSD to use as the: ( Primary OS/Boot Drive )...??


I've read somewhere that when it comes to OS/Boot Drives the (4k Random Reads/Write IOPS) is the Key thing to look for...
Well the OCZ Vertex 2 has (4k Random Write (Aligned): 50,000 IOPS)
And for the Intel X25-M I not to sure on yet...??

I will be installing Win7 Ultimate 64 Bit onto the SSD I get..
And so far the HDD I have Win7 installed onto now is taking up 30GB of an 80GB Partition..!!

Both SSD's are in my reasonable price range of around $200..!!

On the link for the Intel SSD page, it says that the "Intel X25-M Mainstream SSDSA2MJ080G2XX" is Intel's latest version, better and faster..!!!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167027
But I have yet to see any comments or reviews on it yet so far..!!

Do any of you know of any Comparison Charts that put these 2 SSD's to the Test..??


Its so Hard to Decide what to get - can you guys help me narrow down my choice please..??
 

sub mesa

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
2,914
0
21,160
135
Intel is the best SSD out there; even though many have higher sequential write speed and some even have higher IOps; but Intel is a drive without any real weakness; all advanced stuff (write amplification) is done very well and it's simply better than most stuff OCZ sells, without really being more expensive.

So i highly recommend the Intel SSDs. And yes it is random IOps that counts; not only aligned but also unaligned. Intel also does very well with unaligned writes.
 

sub mesa

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
2,914
0
21,160
135
Just look for G2 (second generation) and not G1 which is the older version. You can see this in just before the end of the product code.

The last two letters differ only in packaging; one is OEM meaning you get the drive only. The other is Retail, comes in a box and with a 3.5" -> 2.5" bracket for desktop PCs. There is no difference in the drive itself.
 

sub mesa

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
2,914
0
21,160
135
I have no clue; google doesn't turn up many results.

It could have some different parts like different NAND memory. I'm quite interested, but there is little information available. I have not heard any news site about a new version Intel SSD.

So it may just be the same as G2 and the better and faster refers to the G1 generation. But perhaps this new part does have some newer components; it's unknown at this point.
 

According to this PDF from the Intel site this is one of the current "G2" models. It's "latest, better and faster" compared to the G1 drives that were introduced in late 2008, but is the same as the "current" drives introduced in late 2009.
 

Xx-SIRIS-xX

Distinguished
Jan 9, 2010
23
0
18,510
0

rawsteel

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2006
538
0
18,990
2
The Vertex2 is the better one from the 2 but its less GB.

Intel SSDs are the fastest when it comes to IOPs but its write is very low , like 70MB/s

which can cause it to be slower in some situations. If you are light user/gamer etc and dont have sume HUGE loads on your hdd/ssd , Vertex2 will be faster in 99% of the cases.
 

sub mesa

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
2,914
0
21,160
135
If you don't have 'huge loads' that means you have mainly reads and not writes. In those circumstances the Vertex2 is not superior to Intel, as Intel has the lowest read latency of all SSDs.

The write speed of Sandforce-based Vertex2 is also lower than expected; i think the 50GB drive rates about 100MB/s of uncompressable writes. If you write zeroes then it might say 200MB/s but physically it is still writing at the 100MB/s rate; it is just writing compressed data as Sandforce uses compression on writes.

The Vertex2 does have a lot of spare space though; 28% of the drive physical NAND is reserved and unavailable to the user. Intel is only at 6,8%.
 

Xx-SIRIS-xX

Distinguished
Jan 9, 2010
23
0
18,510
0
sub mesa - which Intel SSD do you use...??

why does the "Intel X25-M SSDSA2MJ080G2XX" cost more than the other 3 Intel X25-M SSD's on this page if its only OEM...??
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010150636%2050001157%201749646481%201421330854%201421445225&bop=And&Order=PRICED&PageSize=20


And if this is the only Retail SSD on that page.. "SSDSA2MH080G2R5"
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167023

Then what are the main differences between the other 3 SSD's listed on that page...??
 

sub mesa

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
2,914
0
21,160
135


This would seem to indicate that the J disk would not have 'high performance'; though it's unclear to me what that means. Could be different NAND memory, could be some other sacrifices.
 

Xx-SIRIS-xX

Distinguished
Jan 9, 2010
23
0
18,510
0
Yeah I know that, but I was just wondering what was so different about the other 3 SSD's though, and what the other suffixes and model #'s meant...??
 

Xx-SIRIS-xX

Distinguished
Jan 9, 2010
23
0
18,510
0
nobody knows anything yet ahy..??
newegg sates that the (SSDSA2M080G2XXX #N82E16820167016) is (Discontinued, replaced by SSDSA2MJ080G2XX #N82E16820167027) the one that says ("Intel's latest version, better and faster")
So it must be the latest version then or something if newegg is gunna make that statement...!!!

what do you guys know or think about this..??


Well anyway.. on the Intel 80GB SSD's what is the recommended partition size for installing (Win7 Ultimate 64Bit)...??

Aren't you suppose to like add 10-20% of the drives capacity to be unallocated or something for optimizations..??

So after all the tweaks and stuff, how much space should be left available to install the OS..??

How much space should Win7 Ultimate X64 take up anyway..??
Becuz right now for me it takes up like 30GB by itself..??

What do you guys recommend / suggest..??
 
> on the Intel 80GB SSD's what is the recommended partition size for installing (Win7 Ultimate 64Bit)...??

There's no reason to partition the drive for performance reasons (like you would a hard drive) since all sectors can be accessed equally fast. Myself, I basically have one large partition that includes my entire (160GB drive). During the install Windows also creates a 100MB "recovery partition" which is the first/boot partition.


> Aren't you suppose to like add 10-20% of the drives capacity to be unallocated or something for optimizations..??

If you're using Windows 7 then IMHO you don't really need to leave unallocated space because TRIM will release unused space in the OS partition as files are deleted. Just try to avoid getting the disk too full, which is easiest to do with as large a partition as possible.


> How much space should Win7 Ultimate X64 take up anyway..??

My system uses up 55GB. That includes a 10GB hibernate file but no pagefile. I have MS Office 2007 / Visio 2007 / Visual Studio 2008, Adobe Premiere Elements, Adobe Web Design Premium CS4 (includes Photoshop and several other apps), as well as a couple of dozen other smaller programs.
 

Similar threads


TRENDING THREADS