Intel 80GB X25M SSD vs OCZ 120GB Vertex 2 SSD?

Well hey guys, i am planning to buy a macbook pro i5 (15.3) with 2.4GHz and i am also planning on getting a SSD for it internally. I am fairly new to the ssd generation and i am aware of how the huge improvements are from a hdd to a ssd. But the real question is, which ssd is better? I just looked at amazon's intel 80gb x25m and how this ssd runs much better than any (as said "any") other ssd. But the price is a bit high for my taste. But what i am looking for is great capacity with much high speeds. So far, to me, it looks like the intel got a great speed as advertised and good reviews. As far for the Vertex OCZ 120gb, it has a high capacity but i am unknown of the speeds. The price for both of these is fairly equal. So i am wondering if anyone knows which is a better ssd to get? I am planning on getting a macbook pro and dual boot it with os x snow leapard (or the new os x) and windows 7.

I really wouldnt mind getting the Intel's 80GB X25M ssd if it reads/writes faster than the vertex. I prefer speed over capacity anyways but which would be better as far for both capacity and speed. And i aint going to pay over $500 to get a 120gb intel. i cant afford that xD

Well, you could get the Intel 120GB for $239 at NewEgg
Newegg.com - Intel X25-M SSDSA2MH120G2K5 2.5" 120GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

Overall, the Intel drives are fantastic with random I/O requests. So, while there specs might not be absolute top of the charts with sequential read/write...their random I/O is faster and that's what the OS drive does most of the time. If I were you, I wouldn't focus so much energy on the sustained read/write speeds of the drives. It's not like those will be primarily storage drives anyway. I mean, if you can write at 400MB/sec...you would fill an 80GB hard drive in just over 4 minutes.

pparks1 said:

Well, you could get the Intel 120GB for $239 at NewEgg
Newegg.com - Intel X25-M SSDSA2MH120G2K5 2.5" 120GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

Overall, the Intel drives are fantastic with random I/O requests. So, while there specs might not be absolute top of the charts with sequential read/write...their random I/O is faster and that's what the OS drive does most of the time. If I were you, I wouldn't focus so much energy on the sustained read/write speeds of the drives. It's not like those will be primarily storage drives anyway. I mean, if you can write at 400MB/sec...you would fill an 80GB hard drive in just over 4 minutes.

You just proved a point in your post.
1-NewEgg has has better prices against the amazon ones.
I didnt know that a 120gb is for that low! thats pretty amazing.

So what exactly do you mean on the last statement though? "I mean, if you can write at 400mb/sec...you would fill an 80gb hard drive in just over 4 minutes"?

AND

"If i were you, i wouldn't focus so much energy on the sustained read/write speeds of the drives...It's not like those will be primarily storage drives anyways"?

What do you mean in those 2 statements?

Brian6121990 said:

So what exactly do you mean on the last statement though? "I mean, if you can write at 400mb/sec...you would fill an 80gb hard drive in just over 4 minutes"?

Everybody focuses on the sustained read/write speeds. For example, perhaps the Crucial drive is rated at 265MB/sec for it's read, compared to the Intel drive at "up to 250MB/sec". However, for the operating system to run and apps to fire...they "rarely" ever read really, really large files continuously. So, maybe the app opens in 0.084 seconds versus 0.087 seconds. Would you even be able to notice that...I'm betting not.

So, lets say you have an SSD and work with saving extremely large photoshop files. Would these really be on your SSD, and would you really gain much from a drive which could write 75MB/sec versus another drive which could write at 150MB/sec? If you write out a 10MB file...either does it almost instantaneously. but if you are writing out a 40GB file....well the time savings is significant....but who has enough capacity on SSD's to handle really large files like this?

Brian6121990 said:

"If i were you, i wouldn't focus so much energy on the sustained read/write speeds of the drives...It's not like those will be primarily storage drives anyways"?

Intel SSD's have never been tops for read/write speeds...yet they always test at the top or very near the top of most SSD benchmark tests. Reason being, extremely fast random I/O. So, with an OS that predominately writes and reads bunches of small files.....that random I/O is a better indicator of performance than a very large read/write speed. Nowadays, drives with the Sandforce controllers seem to get the top spot both due to fast random I/O times as well as fast read/write speeds. But it's not the read/write speeds which make the biggest difference but rather the random I/O.

So, in other words, the last thing I would focus on when considering an SSD would be MB/sec.

pparks1 said:

Brian6121990 said:

So what exactly do you mean on the last statement though? "I mean, if you can write at 400mb/sec...you would fill an 80gb hard drive in just over 4 minutes"?

Everybody focuses on the sustained read/write speeds. For example, perhaps the Crucial drive is rated at 265MB/sec for it's read, compared to the Intel drive at "up to 250MB/sec". However, for the operating system to run and apps to fire...they "rarely" ever read really, really large files continuously. So, maybe the app opens in 0.084 seconds versus 0.087 seconds. Would you even be able to notice that...I'm betting not.

So, lets say you have an SSD and work with saving extremely large photoshop files. Would these really be on your SSD, and would you really gain much from a drive which could write 75MB/sec versus another drive which could write at 150MB/sec? If you write out a 10MB file...either does it almost instantaneously. but if you are writing out a 40GB file....well the time savings is significant....but who has enough capacity on SSD's to handle really large files like this?

Brian6121990 said:

"If i were you, i wouldn't focus so much energy on the sustained read/write speeds of the drives...It's not like those will be primarily storage drives anyways"?

Intel SSD's have never been tops for read/write speeds...yet they always test at the top or very near the top of most SSD benchmark tests. Reason being, extremely fast random I/O. So, with an OS that predominately writes and reads bunches of small files.....that random I/O is a better indicator of performance than a very large read/write speed. Nowadays, drives with the Sandforce controllers seem to get the top spot both due to fast random I/O times as well as fast read/write speeds. But it's not the read/write speeds which make the biggest difference but rather the random I/O.

So, in other words, the last thing I would focus on when considering an SSD would be MB/sec.

Please correct me if i am wrong, so basically you are saying, ssd is already fast enough to not worry about the write/read speeds but just to rely on the capacity itself
instead?

Me, once i get my macbook pro, i would have a dual boot of os x snow leopard (for now till the new os x releases) and have windows 7. I would like to do video editing once i save up and get a hdpvr to record some gameplay from my xbxo 360 :), then also watch some tv on my macbook pro, internet browsing, emails, watch movies, listen to music and have pictures and other data on it. As for the windows 7, i would pretty much do similar and play some pc games on it like cod4 and more.

I thought i mention that just in case because i wanna get an ssd with capacity and read/write speeds. I did notice that the write speeds on ssd are lower than the hdd but the read is much better.

Im just looking for a ssd that suits my needs :)

I know I'm gonna get hammered for this...but...I'm just throwing it out there..
You're asking for SSD performance/reviews for your MAC notebook on a Windows 7 site.

I just found that kinda funny...sorry.

:)

dajogejr said:

I know I'm gonna get hammered for this...but...I'm just throwing it out there..
You're asking for SSD performance/reviews for your MAC notebook on a Windows 7 site.

I just found that kinda funny...sorry.

:)

Its ok but im not trying to spam or flame here. I apologize if this topic gave the wrong idea. I am still dealing with windows 7. I love windows 7. It suits me because its simple. I am just saying that my next updrade from this notebook/netbook to a macbook pro. I like the specs on it and everything. I just wouldnt get a hp envy because the extra 9 cell battery kills the portability of it and the looks. I like the way the macbook pro looks and the long battery life. I am installing windows 7 on it anyways since i am used to it :)

How does the 9 cell battery kill the portability of the HP laptop? I'm running a 9 cell battery in a Dell laptop and it's certainly still portable. I think these batteries add about 1lb. In the case of the HP battery, it's a slice battery that covers the entire bottom of the machine....so it doesn't really change the appearance other than making it a bit thicker.

On the flip side, with the HP, at least you can change the battery...unlike the MAC which doesn't have a user replaceable battery. That would be a big deterrent for me...especially considering the extra cost of the Mac.

pparks1 said:

How does the 9 cell battery kill the portability of the HP laptop? I'm running a 9 cell battery in a Dell laptop and it's certainly still portable. I think these batteries add about 1lb. In the case of the HP battery, it's a slice battery that covers the entire bottom of the machine....so it doesn't really change the appearance other than making it a bit thicker.

On the flip side, with the HP, at least you can change the battery...unlike the MAC which doesn't have a user replaceable battery. That would be a big deterrent for me...especially considering the extra cost of the Mac.

1-Warrenty covers all that stuff (except upgrading the hard drives which is pretty wacky tacky)
2-Thats just me though, you gotta add the slice of the 9 cell battery on the hp envy. While to the macbook pros, its smaller and gives more power efficiency.
3-The only thing i am not considering on buying the mac is upgrading. I wanna upgrade the hdd to a ssd and that voids warrenty if anything is damaged...

Brian6121990 said:

1-Warrenty covers all that stuff (except upgrading the hard drives which is pretty wacky tacky)

Fair enough, but Apple Care warranties are far from free too.