Thinkpads Forum

What is the preferred thickness of HD/SSD for X61T ? Is the 9.5mm too snug a fit ? Will the 7mm move around without a spacer ? Any tips, in particular, regarding the x25-m ? (I know the new series 320 are out but understand these may not be as reliable as the proven x25-m and the benefits of going G2 to G3 is not applicable on the X61 series anyway)

My X61t takes a 9.5 mm disk. Since the disk is not screwed into the machine but instead into a floating caddy, I imagine a 7mm disk would jiggle around a bit. Open your machine up and take a look (it's only 1 screw).

Intel's marketing indicates that the 320 series is more reliable than the X25-M, and with the 320 series only being available in the marketplace for a few weeks, what evidence do you have that they're less reliable? Please don't spread FUD.

Also, be aware: the X61t only supports SATA-I (1.5 Gbps), while the Intel SSDs are all at least SATA-II (3 Gbps). Search the forum for more info.

What's the price difference between the new 320 series and the X25-M's? I have two of the latter (one in my desktop, one in my T61) and they work great. If I were you I would pick the cheaper one since I'm not using applications that read a lot out of SSD's. But of course is my personal view.

To fully exploit SATA II speeds you will need to flash your bios with this version.

My $0,02...

tamasrepus wrote:My X61t takes a 9.5 mm disk. Since the disk is not screwed into the machine but instead into a floating caddy, I imagine a 7mm disk would jiggle around a bit. Open your machine up and take a look (it's only 1 screw).

Intel's marketing indicates that the 320 series is more reliable than the X25-M, and with the 320 series only being available in the marketplace for a few weeks, what evidence do you have that they're less reliable? Please don't spread FUD.

Also, be aware: the X61t only supports SATA-I (1.5 Gbps), while the Intel SSDs are all at least SATA-II (3 Gbps). Search the forum for more info.

320 should be more reliable in theory, but it is too new to know real-world results. X25-M is proven technology which is what I said. I did not say the 320 was unreliable, just that it hadn't proven its marketing claims.

61 series can support SATA II, as pointed out by Tasurinchi.Going from the G2 (3 Gbps) of the x25-m's to G3 (6Gbps) of the 320 isn't worth it on the X61t.

Tasurinchi wrote:What's the price difference between the new 320 series and the X25-M's? I have two of the latter (one in my desktop, one in my T61) and they work great. If I were you I would pick the cheaper one since I'm not using applications that read a lot out of SSD's. But of course is my personal view.

To fully exploit SATA II speeds you will need to flash your bios with this version.

My $0,02...

Prices are similar, depends on the seller. Those selling both tend to have the x25-m slightly cheaper, presumably to clear stock. Most big sellers (e.g. newegg) have discontinued selling the x25m.

I agree with you price is the most importantly factor, "supercap" (corruption prevention duing powerloss) aside, G3 does not offer major advantages over the G2, especially when used in equipment like the 61 series. The comparison is not like G2 vs G1 (no TRIM, etc.) The 320 seems to have slightly faster write speeds but again, these depend on the review- have seen contradictory reports of x25-m outperforming as well.

I'm on the lookout for an x25-m clearance sale, maybe like 10% off. If this doesn't materialize in the next few days/weeks and no major issues arise with the 320, I might go for these instead.

j.varkey wrote:61 series can support SATA II, as pointed out by Tasurinchi.Going from the G2 (3 Gbps) of the x25-m's to G3 (6Gbps) of the 320 isn't worth it on the X61t.

you're confusing the 320 series (3Gb/s) with the 510 series (6Gb/s).   the X61T will use either one.   the only limit on the 510 series would be the upper end of sequential reads/writes in benchmarks.   in real-world use it won't make a bit of difference.   benchmark results on the X25-M and 320 series (again, both are 3Gb/s max) are almost identical.   the 510 looks better on paper but the 320 outperforms it everywhere except large file sequential speeds.

regardless, i would recommend the 320 series as they've been proving very reliable for me.   i have two in my thinkstation with 800MB writes and 2.4TB reads spanning two drives.   i've had zero issues to speak of so far.   i upgraded from the X25-M series and don't regret it one bit.

I have the 320 in my X61t. HUGE improvement especially when working with virtual machines. It used to take a couple of minutes to close a virtual machine and write all the changes, now it takes a few seconds AND I can instantly open another one. Before if I didn't want for the disk activity to stop and I opened a new session, it'd take like 10 minutes to actually open the new session..