Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 127557	2012-10-30 08:19:00	SSD Intel vs OCZ	bk T (215)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1309712	2012-10-30 08:19:00	Intel 520 series 120GB or OCZ Vertex4 128GB ? Intel is slightly more expensive than OCZ, both have a 5 years warranty. Which is a better buy? Views from both Intel and OCZ users will be appreciated. Cheers	bk T (215)
1309713	2012-10-30 08:47:00	I can't remember what drive is faster but I would probably just go for the faster one (benchmarks must be somewhere). I recall that OCZ had issues with Vertex 2's and 3's as they were using the cheap sandforce controllers unlike intel who used the better quality marvell ones. I'm 99% sure that OCZ switched to marvell for the Vertex 4s. As long as the vertex is using the marvell controller it should be *fine*.	icow (15313)
1309714	2012-10-30 08:51:00	Do they come with the bracket adapter?	bk T (215)
1309715	2012-10-30 09:04:00	Personally I prefer the Vertex4, as the Everest2 seems to be the best of the current-generation consumer-grade SSD controllers, though the Intel will have slightly better peak write speeds (but average read/write is about the same for both).	inphinity (7274)
1309716	2012-10-30 10:07:00	Yeah OCZ is cheaper / faster, as icow mentions their controller is cheaper and more prone to failure. Still with a 5 year warranty on it, can't go too wrong, and if I'm going for a solid-state, I'm going for the speed.	Chilling_Silence (9)
1309717	2012-10-30 10:25:00	I'm the opposite, intel for reliability. the speed difference between SSD's is nothing really in practice - the main thing is ditching a normal hdd for your OS drive. I Went from and intel 320 series to a samsung 830 series - benchmarks show about twice the speed for the samsung but you cant tell the difference using them (except the samsung is also twice the size - the real reason for the change) A 3rd option would be a samsung 830 series, might be slighty faster than both and has a good reputation so far. Crucial M4 is another one with a good name and price but it's a bit slower. Toms hardware has a best SSD for the money article I was going to link but it wont load right now for some reason.	dugimodo (138)
1309718	2012-10-30 10:39:00	I have found the 320 series quite unreliable. I have had about 4 of them fail at work in the last 6 months. Usually the drive showing up as only 8mb issue after an unexpected power failure (even with latest firmware) The latest one failed after I unencripted the bitlocker on it, apprently a common issue too. The 330 series they have replaced a couple with have so far been fine.	Alex B (15479)
1309719	2012-10-30 19:19:00	I have two OCZ Vertex 4 drives running in Raid 0. One of the SSD's failed right from the start. It was replaced under warranty immediately. The only problem I had after this was with raid parting company. After trying everything else I replaced the Intel drivers with Marvel and have had no problems since. R/W times are in the mid 900's. I'm Happy.	JJJJJ (528)
1309720	2012-10-30 20:02:00	Yeah OCZ is cheaper / faster, as icow mentions their controller is cheaper and more prone to failure. Still with a 5 year warranty on it, can't go too wrong, and if I'm going for a solid-state, I'm going for the speed. Disagree, the Everest2 controller is in my experience more stable than the Sandforce controller Intel use in the 520 series. Both consistent-performance-wise and failure rate.	inphinity (7274)
1309721	2012-10-30 20:24:00	The main reason why the OCZ's are cheaper is because they take the fastest and cheapest parts, not the parts known for their reliability. This is why you see them in gaming rigs, but you'd only ever see the Intels in a server. I'm not saying that either is immune to failure but upon doing a lot of research prior to buying my first SSD almost a year ago, it was clear (At least back with the Agility 3 / Vertex 3 series) that the OCZs had a higher failure rate than their more expensive Intel counterparts. I'd still take the OCZ though, and have 3 at home :D	Chilling_Silence (9)
1 2 3