and I've heard really good things about the Crucial M4, so I've been considering that instead. Is it worth the extra money for Intel's (advertised speed is about 100mb faster)
I'd go Crucial, heard about firmware issues with it, though Intel SSD may have this fixed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise, it's continuing mission to explore a strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before.”-Gene Roddenberry
Intel for custom firmware and thee most reliable.
It survived a basketball throw by Linus
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
New account: FrozenOblivion, Contact me there, not here
Desktop (not yet built): i7 2600k/3770k, Gtx 680 DCII/Twin Frozr III, 16gb ram, 2TB Seagate hard drive, 500R/650D. psu that I haven't decided on yet
Intel SSDs are the most reliable consumer SSDs on the market.
If it is Intel-branded, it has probably been trialled to hell to make sure it works, and works well.
Okay, but this means I'm going to have to pull money out of nowhere to get my computer's networking set up. I suppose I could just get a 64gb one, but meh, I want powar. ;D
(I know space != power, but this would mean more things on the SSD which does translate into powar)
Intel SSDs are the most reliable consumer SSDs on the market.
If it is Intel-branded, it has probably been trialled to hell to make sure it works, and works well.
Well, the Crucial M4 is pretty tried and tested, you can't go too far wrong there (I have one myself). The Intel 520 is different from the previous Intel range in that it uses a Sandforce controller, which has been used in a lot of cheaper units, many of which have rather poor reliability - the reason I went for the Crucial is that the Intel 520 was still very new at the time and I didn't think it was worth gambling on a more expensive unit that didn't have a lot of feedack at the time.
However, the Intel unit did have a good year of R&D to develop the firmware (firmware being the primary cause for reliability issues with SSDs), and the feedback seems positive so far so I don't think reliability is an issue. The question is, is it worth spending more money for the faster Intel unit - the practical difference isn't really that relevant for most people, given the huge difference in performance between an SSD and HDD in the first place, so unless you have some use in mind where maximum possible speed is an issue I'd just go with the Crucial.
Well Intel does have decent warrenty, I'm sure if something messes up, you can get a new one
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
New account: FrozenOblivion, Contact me there, not here
Desktop (not yet built): i7 2600k/3770k, Gtx 680 DCII/Twin Frozr III, 16gb ram, 2TB Seagate hard drive, 500R/650D. psu that I haven't decided on yet
Well, the Crucial M4 is pretty tried and tested, you can't go too far wrong there (I have one myself). The Intel 520 is different from the previous Intel range in that it uses a Sandforce controller, which has been used in a lot of cheaper units, many of which have rather poor reliability - the reason I went for the Crucial is that the Intel 520 was still very new at the time and I didn't think it was worth gambling on a more expensive unit that didn't have a lot of feedack at the time.
However, the Intel unit did have a good year of R&D to develop the firmware (firmware being the primary cause for reliability issues with SSDs), and the feedback seems positive so far so I don't think reliability is an issue. The question is, is it worth spending more money for the faster Intel unit - the practical difference isn't really that relevant for most people, given the huge difference in performance between an SSD and HDD in the first place, so unless you have some use in mind where maximum possible speed is an issue I'd just go with the Crucial.
That's what I've been thinking, and the Crucial is very fast.
Not really - Intel has a great reputation for reliabilty with their SSDs, but as always they aren't infallible, the 320 series for example had some problems for quite some time. You shouldn't buy an SSD blindly based on brand loyalty, you need to research the product you are buying.
The M4 and the Intel both have great reviews. I'm just considering if $20 is worth the 100mb/s speed increase.
I've heard that Intel drives are the best on the consumer market. Personally I have two Crucial m4 drives and they are really fast and really reliable. I considered purchasing the Samsung 830 series SSD when I purchased my last SSD. In the end I'd go with the Intel if you have the extra money.
I've heard that Intel drives are the best on the consumer market. Personally I have two Crucial m4 drives and they are really fast and really reliable. I considered purchasing the Samsung 830 series SSD when I purchased my last SSD. In the end I'd go with the Intel if you have the extra money.
And Crucial SSDs work with any OS.
It's mostly about speed. They're both very reliable drives with great reviews. Is $20 worth a 100mb/s speed increase? I'm not doing anything really critical to disk speed. It's mostly about boot time, programs and games.
Assuming you have a 'realistic' budget and that $20 could go towards a better graphics card or some other component then no, it probably wouldn't be worth it - the extra speed isn't going to give you any real world benefit in normal use.
I already have the rest of my computer built. Specs in my sig.
It's mostly about speed. They're both very reliable drives with great reviews. Is $20 worth a 100mb/s speed increase? I'm not doing anything really critical to disk speed. It's mostly about boot time, programs and games.
I got the m4 since that extra $20 didn't seem worth it to me. Most SSDs are going to be extremely fast when compared to a hard drive. I haven't had any issues at all with the performance or reliability of my SSD.
I have an M4 and I'm very happy with it, just make sure it has the latest firmware. (before you install your OS on it)
Also, how fast you get through bios is going to affect your start up times more than the difference between an intel SSD or crucial M4 ssd. My friend has an intel 520 and mine still boots faster just because it just blazes through the bios while his hangs a little.
EDIT: Wow, didn't realise how old this was... Guessing you already have an SSD and all this is completely pointless now?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=20-167-093&SortField=0&SummaryType=0&Pagesize=10&PurchaseMark=&SelectedRating=-1&VideoOnlyMark=False&VendorMark=&IsFeedbackTab=true&Page=2#scrollFullInfo
and I've heard really good things about the Crucial M4, so I've been considering that instead. Is it worth the extra money for Intel's (advertised speed is about 100mb faster)
This is my other option. I'm leaning towards this atm.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148448&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=
i5 6600k 4.6ghz / MSI 280X / 8Gb 2666 DDR4 / Gigabyte Z170X-UD5 / TX550M / 500Gb 850 EVO / NZXT S340 / Corsair K65 / Corsair M60
I'd go Crucial, heard about firmware issues with it, though Intel SSD may have this fixed.
Even though it's a bit over budget? I also read that the longevity isn't great.
It survived a basketball throw by Linus
Desktop (not yet built): i7 2600k/3770k, Gtx 680 DCII/Twin Frozr III, 16gb ram, 2TB Seagate hard drive, 500R/650D. psu that I haven't decided on yet
That was a funny video. I seriously thought he was on drugs when he made that.
Okay, but this means I'm going to have to pull money out of nowhere to get my computer's networking set up. I suppose I could just get a 64gb one, but meh, I want powar. ;D
(I know space != power, but this would mean more things on the SSD which does translate into powar)
I doubt that.Also, does anyone have any better suggestions that my two choices?
That's true.
Well Intel does have decent warrenty, I'm sure if something messes up, you can get a new one
Desktop (not yet built): i7 2600k/3770k, Gtx 680 DCII/Twin Frozr III, 16gb ram, 2TB Seagate hard drive, 500R/650D. psu that I haven't decided on yet
That's what I've been thinking, and the Crucial is very fast.
The M4 and the Intel both have great reviews. I'm just considering if $20 is worth the 100mb/s speed increase.
Where did you hear that? That's wrong, SSD's store data, it doesn't matter what it is.
And Crucial SSDs work with any OS.
It's mostly about speed. They're both very reliable drives with great reviews. Is $20 worth a 100mb/s speed increase? I'm not doing anything really critical to disk speed. It's mostly about boot time, programs and games.
I already have the rest of my computer built. Specs in my sig.
I got the m4 since that extra $20 didn't seem worth it to me. Most SSDs are going to be extremely fast when compared to a hard drive. I haven't had any issues at all with the performance or reliability of my SSD.
Some website. I thought it sounded a bit odd, since it was an SSD.
Also, how fast you get through bios is going to affect your start up times more than the difference between an intel SSD or crucial M4 ssd. My friend has an intel 520 and mine still boots faster just because it just blazes through the bios while his hangs a little.
EDIT: Wow, didn't realise how old this was... Guessing you already have an SSD and all this is completely pointless now?