The all new Intel 330 series of SSD coming soon to OcUK!

Andrew Moore said:
Hello All

Right, Benchies coming tomorrow!!

As for slow drievs, if your using an SATA 2 controller OR a sata 6GB/s thats NOT intel then dont expect the rated speeds. Marvell controllers just dont have the performance unfortunately.

:(
Click to expand...

Hi.

What about native AMD SATA 3 ports (6Gbps) or the Marvell 9182 controller which is much better than the 9128 found on most motherboards?
 
Andrew Moore said:
Hello All


Right, Benchies coming tomorrow!!


As for slow drievs, if your using an SATA 2 controller OR a sata 6GB/s thats NOT intel then dont expect the rated speeds. Marvell controllers just dont have the performance unfortunately.

:(
Click to expand...

Great, I look forward to seeing them. I have an ASUS P8Z68-V PRO and the SSD is plugged in, with the cable that intel provided, to the Intel 6GB serial port on my motherboard...
 
OK it's obviously plugged into the micron controller judging by this:

Toolbox.png


I guess I'll try the other sockets...motherboard manual says it's in the right slot though. And the BIOS disagrees...

120421212023.jpg
 
sunama said:
A lot of people don't quite understand this concept.

When going from a mechanical HD to an SSD, you gain mainly due to the access time. This makes the system more snappy.

When you go from an older SSD (with lower top end transfer rates), to a new SSD (with higher top end transfer rates), the access time remains pretty much the same. Hence, you barely notice any difference.

This is why when people recommend paying extra for an SSD with super high transfer rates, VS an SSD with lower transfer rates, for most people this is bad advice (unless they have money to burn).

Unless you specifically use applications which require super high transfer rates (eg. you open lots of photoshop files or constantly transfer huge files), the transfer rate will make no noticeable difference.

The headline transfer rates are merely used for marketing. And like lemmings most people fall for this.

For most people, the most important qualities in an SSD is reliability and cost/GB. Everything else should be secondary.

This is why if Intel (who release the most reliable SSDs), release an SSD which is slightly slower than the competition, but at a reasonable price, I would always advise buying Intel. No other SSD on the market has a lower failure rate than Intel SSDs. I believe OCZ have the highest failure rates. Their Petrol range of SSDs have the highest 1* reviews of any SSD I have ever read about and it shocks me that they haven't binned that range.
Click to expand...


So If I were to upgrade my ocz vertex 2e (285mb/s read) to a crucial m4 (500mb/s read) I wouldnt notice any diff?
 
Last edited:
Johnnytoxic said:
Not much at all. Unless your copying large large files.

Photoshop might open a couple of ms quicker maybe.
Click to expand...

Ah thanks cos I was thinking of upgrading to the M4. Plus Ive still got stacks of space left on my vertex ssd to last a few more yrs, That's if it doesn't brake, but touch wood it wont as it will be 2yrs old at Xmas
 
Last edited:
Phil2008 said:
So If I were to upgrade my ocz vertex 2e (285mb/s read) to a crucial m4 (500mb/s read) I wouldnt notice any diff?
Click to expand...

I don't own those SSDs, so I can't say for sure, with a 100% guarantee.

But in a blind test, I would put money on you not being able to tell the difference between the 2 SSDs.

There are plenty of reports where people have upgraded from an old SSD to new SSD and they have noticed little difference. Perhaps the Windows load time has gone down by 1s.

Where you will notice the difference is in transferring large/single files.

If you want, try the upgrade and report back and let us know.
 
dirtychinchilla said:
OK it's obviously plugged into the micron controller judging by this:

<image removed>

I guess I'll try the other sockets...motherboard manual says it's in the right slot though. And the BIOS disagrees...

<image remvoed>
Click to expand...

Don't worry about all the controllers the Toolbox is showing as they are only visible when enabled in BIOS regardless of if anything is connected to them. So if you are sure SSD is connected to Intel port after reading manual then it will be.

As for your benchmarks reducing it could be a feature of the Sandforce controller, as happened with earlier models. Not sure if it was Durawrite or some other buzz name that caused it. But basically a lot of data gets written to SSD during some benchmarks, and the controller was more concerned with wear levelling and preserving lifespan. Not sure if this is still true for the SF-2281 controller.

It might be worth swapped the SATA cable that came with the Intel SSD for one that came with motherboard, if you think it looks better quality. Then try and resist benchmarking.
 
Any rough estimates on when more stock will be coming in?
I missed the M4 on the Today only, so I've been eyeing this up since then. But I've just found an M4 delivered for £110, although I'd rather buy the M4 or 330 from OcUK.
 
Andrew Moore said:
Hello All
Right, Benchies coming tomorrow!!
As for slow drievs, if your using an SATA 2 controller OR a sata 6GB/s thats NOT intel then dont expect the rated speeds. Marvell controllers just dont have the performance unfortunately.:(
Click to expand...

Realy hopes this is the case, the figures sure dont look promissing so far,
I had hoped to raid-o 2 x 60 GB, (compare to M4 the write-speed should
be better), 520 model is known to do about 1 Gb/s raided, sustained,..

For those who claims upping the transfer-rate is not important, I guess
you never heard of video-editing, and programs like premiere, from what
I have seen the high transfer comes in handy when working with several
uncompressed tracks on the timeline

File-handling of video and common DSLR foto is also heavy these days

One of the bennefits of the new Intel chipsets is the 2 "full-speed" sata-
ports, for the first time ever sustained transfer at about 1 Gb/s can be
done on very low budget, without fighting with a bigger raid-array/card

Guess we are quite a few awaiting more info how 330 is sustaining mb/s

In our scenario seek-time is not realy important :D
 
HHM said:
For those who claims upping the transfer-rate is not important, I guess
you never heard of video-editing, and programs like premiere, from what
I have seen the high transfer comes in handy when working with several
uncompressed tracks on the timeline
Click to expand...

What you have there are large files.
High sustained transfer rates are important when it comes to reading/writing.
Large photoshop and video files are good examples where an SSD with the highest transfer rate will make a difference.

Most people do not work with large files. They work with many small files. Hence, the highest sustained transfer rate is of less importance.
 
sunama said:
Intel (who release the most reliable SSDs), release an SSD which is slightly slower than the competition, but at a reasonable price, I would always advise buying Intel. No other SSD on the market has a lower failure rate than Intel SSDs. I believe OCZ have the highest failure rates. Their Petrol range of SSDs have the highest 1* reviews of any SSD I have ever read about and it shocks me that they haven't binned that range.
Click to expand...

Lol, I can well believe OCZ having high failure rate if they're anything like their PSU's.

Interesting about Intel. Does this mean I'm better off buying an Intel SSD instead of the highly recommended Crucial M4?
 
Merlin5 said:
Interesting about Intel. Does this mean I'm better off buying an Intel SSD instead of the highly recommended Crucial M4?
Click to expand...

The problem is that this 330SSD is so new, there is almost no user opinions out there.

If you buy it, you are taking a risk (you will be the early adopter). BUT remember that Intel have the best track record of any SSD maker.

The choice is yours.

PS. Samsung also rank with Intel as being super reliable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom