Intel 320 120GB vs. Crucial M4 128GB. Owners?

[hunterman223]

Any owners out there of either of these drives? I had basically settled on the Intel when the Crucial came around, and it's looking pretty good. I am thinking of changing my mind and going for the M4, but I am wondering if performance will be any better. Reliability seems to be pretty good with both Intel and Crucial, so that's not much of a concern.

So here is basically what is stopping me from changing my mind right this second. The M4 is a SATA III drive, and the benchmarks and specifications are using SATA III speeds. However, I will be using the drive in my T400, which of course has SATA II. How much of a difference should I expect from the SATA III performance specifications?

I am also leaning towards the M4 because it is the more future proof investment, if I upgrade to a SATA III laptop or desktop in the future I can continue to use this drive.

Any opinions? I would especially like to hear from owners of Crucial drives, including the C300 as I hear they are quite similar.

[ZaZ]

I am also leaning towards the M4 because it is the more future proof investment, if I upgrade to a SATA III laptop or desktop in the future I can continue to use this drive.

I'm more likely to upgrade in a few years when capacities get larger than for the sake of performance. I don't really see either drive making much of a difference one way of the other.

[hunterman223]

Thanks for the reply. However, I won't be replacing the SSD anytime soon, and I will be getting a HDD Adapter for the UltraBay, so space isn't an issue for me anyways. At the present moment the total usage for all partitions on my 500GB hard drive is >50GB, and that is an unusually large amount for me.

Any M4 or Intel 320 owners out there?

[galapogos]

Would like to know as well. Thinking of getting one for my desktop and one for my ideapad g470.

According to this review, there's some freezing issue with the M4 when LPM turned on. It goes away when LPM is turned off, but with a huge battery life penalty, so that's something to consider for laptops...

Here's a google translate of a french review of several SSDs, including the Intel 320 120GB and Crucial M4 128GB. You don't need to know french to read the graphs though. Bottomline - in 6Gbps the m4 is substantially faster than the 320, but in 3Gbps, not that significant.

[hunterman223]

Thanks for the link to the benchmarks, I was looking for something that showed SATA II speeds. It seems I was right in thinking that the M4 had a slight edge on SATA 2, but they are quite close.

It seems that Crucial has released updated firmware to fix the LPM issue, as well as a registry workaround that is likely no longer needed with the firmware.

http://forum.crucial.com/t5/Solid-State ... td-p/52030

[galapogos]

No problem. I think I'd still go with the Intel 320 though, because logically I don't think I will be able to tell a difference between the 2 SSDs in everyday tasks. Unless you're doing some really disk intensive stuff with your laptop, I'd suspect this to be the same. A move from a HDD to a SSD will be noticeable. A move from a fast SSD to a faster one, likely not much.

Also, reliability of Intel drives are thought to be better, and they also do offer a longer 5yr warranty compared to Crucial's 3yr where I am.

[hunterman223]

Good point, and that 5 year warranty does sound pretty nice. Shows they must put some stock in their reliability, so that is definitely something to consider.

[eyeland]

I facing the same choice, trying to decide betwen these two drives.
At first it would be installed in my T61, but I might upgrade to a t/w520 within a year.
As long as used in my sata 2 t61, the clear choice would be intel for the improoved reliability and warranty.
When considdering a system upgrade to Sata 3 however, the scaling of the M4 makes it a hard choice...
In DK the M4 is even a little cheaper than the 320. so the choice is a hard one...

[hunterman223]

If that's the case I'd get the M4, if it's cheaper. I have settled on neither, and in a week or so I will be getting the Corsair Force III 60GB, since I decided I don't need extra space as I will be putting my current drive in the ultrabay with an adapter. The Force III is supposed to be a pretty nice drive as well, so something to consider. Over here in the UK it is £93.95 in the BT Online Shop versus the £180 for one of the 128GB drives.

Edit: Just thought I'd add, your signature is tiny! I tried to have a look but I'll have to dig out my magnifying glass. (or the zoom button )

[RealBlackStuff]

The other day Newegg had a special on the M4/60GB so I checked up on it.
Anandtech is not convinced about the M4, due to its very late garbage-collection.
Based on their testreport, I decided to pass up on the M4, and wait for another OCZ Vertex special.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4253/the- ... ssd-review

[eyeland]

tough one I guess...
Don't know if these drives are prices similarly in EU and US. Either way, I decided to share a few of the notes I've made while trying to decide. I started out hooked on the idea of a Vertex, then changed my mind and opted for the stability of Intel and now, seeing as a new SSD should hopefully outlive my SATA2 limited system, the M4 could seem like the best alternative if one is looking for a cheap SSD in the 120ish GB range that performs well on both SATA2/SATA3.

Anandtech is not convinced about the M4, due to its very late garbage-collection.
Based on their testreport, I decided to pass up on the M4, and wait for another OCZ Vertex special.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4253/the- ... ssd-review

I don't read Anands review that negatively, e.g.

I am a bit put off by the fact that the m4 doesn't seem to have the peak sequential performance of some of the other next-generation drives we've reviewed. The Vertex 3 and Intel SSD 510 both do much better in sequential transfer speeds than the m4. To Crucial's credit however, without any data deduplication/compression it delivers the best 4KB random write performance we've seen to date.My remaining concerns with the m4 are really not that different from those I had with the C300. Crucial's very late garbage collection allows the possibility for some very poor write speeds over time. If you're running in a configuration without TRIM support, I'd say this is enough to rule out the m4. Sure performance should recover with sequential write passes, however if your workload isn't sufficiently sequential then this could pose a problem. If you do have a TRIM enabled OS I'm not entirely sure how the m4 will behave over time. TRIM should keep things running smoothly but that will largely depend on workload. Again, I think that for most desktop/notebook users the m4 will do just fine but it's tough to say for sure without months of testing under my belt. In other words, like any other brand new SSD—approach with caution.

In this regard, its worth noting the pricing of the M4 in DK. ATM, the M4/128 is priced at 2,112$/GB making it tied with the Agility 3 as the cheapest SATA III drive available in DK.

Vertex 2-240GB/120GB (SATA2): 1,916/1,941$/GB (THE cheapest SSD available in DK)
Intel 320-120GB (SATA2): 2,114$/GB
OCZ Agility 3-120 (SATA3): 2,160$/GB
Crucial M4-128 (SATA3): 2,165$/GB (Cheapest SATA3 SSD in DK)
Intel 320-160GB (SATA2): 2,249$/GB
OCZ Vertex 3-120 (SATA3): 2,672$/GB
Intel 510-250/120 (SATA3) 2,917/2,981$/GB (Cheapest SATA3 SSD form Intel in DK)

Notes (please add to this list or point out any errors)
Intel 320: Higher capacity=Better performance (600>300>160>120>80>40)(meaning that the different capacities must be treated separately when comparing)
Pro: Encryption, power fail-protection, lowest rate of failure, 5y warranty
Con: no Sata3, rumors of sudden death (related to power-cycling)

The Crucial M4: LOWER capacity=Better performance (128>256)
Pro: Cheapest Sata3 in DK
Con: Possibly sub-par heavy-load/sequential performance due to late garbage collection?

OCX Vertex 2: Similar performance across capacity? (not sure about this one)
Pro: Cheapest SSD available in DK
Cons: High speeds are not consistent due to data-compression which makes the stats of the vertex further non-transparent, Comparatively high rate of failure.

[hunterman223]

The other day Newegg had a special on the M4/60GB so I checked up on it.
Anandtech is not convinced about the M4, due to its very late garbage-collection.
Based on their testreport, I decided to pass up on the M4, and wait for another OCZ Vertex special.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4253/the- ... ssd-review

As good as Anand generally is, have a look at other reviews. I think his issues could be attributed to a "one off" of some sort, as looking at PC Pro and Hardware Heaven (terrible website design ) and others, they rate the drive very well. Also, I may have changed my mind again, as I figured out that the Agility 3 and the Force 3 are basically the same drive. The Force 3 drive has better specs due to the way it is tested, using compressible data. I'm just going to say the heck with it and get the M4 drive. It's issue has been fixed with the firmware update, and it's supposed to be a great drive that actually holds true to it's specs. I've been delaying the whole thing for a while now and I have read so many reviews it is ridiculous, so I'll just have to review it myself.

[bill bolton]

The Force 3 drive has better specs due to the way it is tested, using compressible data.

There is a lot of gaming of specs going on between SSD vendors. The bottom line is that there isn't much real difference in performance between contemporary SSD brands in actual use.

Buying on the basis of reliability/warranty is a much better strategy than buying on performance.

Cheers,

Bill B.

[hunterman223]

There is a lot of gaming of specs going on between SSD vendors. The bottom line is that there isn't much real difference in performance between contemporary SSD brands in actual use.

Buying on the basis of reliability/warranty is a much better strategy than buying on performance.

Cheers,

Bill B.

Definitely, and the M4 seems to be okay for all of the above. Good real-life performance, 3 year warranty, and it's Crucial with good service and reliability.

[eyeland]

/agree, I think the final choice for me stands between the M4(Sata3) and the 320(Stability and 5years warranty).

[hunterman223]

If I were you I'd go for the M4. Crucial is a solid, trusted name and overall the M4 looks like a better drive, IMO. Time will tell, I will be ordering it soon.

[eyeland]

If they both came with 5year warranty it would be a no-brainer IMO, but I'll probably still go for the M4

[rzr]

Would like to know as well. Thinking of getting one for my desktop and one for my ideapad g470.

I have a g470 too , do u use it under gnu/linux ?