I want to update my SSD as the sustained sequential write is not that fast and I'm thinking of going for the OCZ Vertex 3 120GB, also my mother board supports sata 3 so I want to take advantage of that too. I'm Just wondering what people think of this one and is it the best one around that price and size to go for ?
Intel X25-M G2 80GB replacement
- Thread starter RobotGirl
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,496
I noticed absolutely no difference in anything I do day to day going from a 80GB X25-M to a 300GB 320 series, and what was double as fast for writes.
Doing it for performance reasons is a bad argument in my opinion, for space reasons however, go ahead.
Although, personally, I wouldn't buy an OCZ.
Doing it for performance reasons is a bad argument in my opinion, for space reasons however, go ahead.
Although, personally, I wouldn't buy an OCZ.
Thanks Concorde Rules you’ve given me more to think about now, I would have expected a significant performance boost over the 80GB X25 and in real world terms you've seen no difference .That’s put the performance aspect /reason for an upgrade into some doubt, especially if I’ll see little to no real difference .I kind of thought OCZ were a good make/brand to go for? I take it you’ve had some bad experiences with them?
Agreed, X25-M to Agility 3 on sata 3 and never really noticed a difference outside of benchmarks..
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,496
I do quite a lot of photo/video work, using the SSD as the cache. I might have shaved a second or two off certain processes, but when it takes 20 minutes and is limited by the CPU, who cares?
Everything that takes < 5 seconds to do (which is basically everything you do 99% of the time) what is 0.25 of a second?
As for OCZ, I've personally never had them, always stuck with Intel. Every forum I frequent there are bad stories about OCZ more often than others. Intel had the stats for the lowest return rates so they get my money (and the 5 year warranty - not that that matters in this game!)
You get what you pay for! I've had four Intel SSDs, two 80GBs, a 160GB and a 300GB and they have all never skipped a beat.
Discounting Intel from the equation, I'm fairly impressed with the M4 series. So i'd get one of them.
But then again, you can pick up a 160GB X25-M second hand for ~£130-150, so why buy anything else? I picked up my 300GB 320 series for £240 from here.
As long as you do your research and not get hung up on unimportant performance stats (i.e. sequential read and write) you will be happy, whatever you do.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 1,294
- Location
- Leicestershire
You have to take into account most drives quote speeds when transfering data which is compressed (such as the the vertex 3, agility3). If you look at the transfer rates for uncompressable data it is much slower.
What drives/etc are you going be writing from that going read faster then 220MB/sec ??
I only write stuff from my normal harddrives,dvd-rom,USB flash drives,etc to my M4 SSD and none my them can read anywhere near 220MB/sec
Last edited:
I only write stuff from my normal harddrives,dvd-rom,USB flash drives,etc to my M4 SSD and none my them can read anywhere near 220MB/sec
hehe thats a good point it kinda makes a bit of a mockery of the whole 500+mb read/write speeds.
Actually that is a very good point ,sometimes it's easy to get caught up in all the hard sell specifications as opposed real world usage .Also I never knew that the speeds quoted were compressed data rates ,it's a bit sneaky that one ,thank you everyone.What drives/etc are you going be writing from that going read faster then 220MB/sec ??
I only write stuff from my normal harddrives,dvd-rom,USB flash drives,etc to my M4 SSD and none my them can read anywhere near 220MB/sec