The 2011 Mid-Range SSD Roundup: 120GB Agility 3, Intel 510 and More Compared
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 7, 2011 12:52 PM ESTFinal Words
When I reviewed the 240GB Vertex 3, it looked like game over for all of the other new 6Gbps drives. Intel's SSD 510 was competitive but clearly in second place. Moving to 120GB, the Vertex 3 lost a lot of steam thanks to a reduction in the total number of NAND die. The Intel SSD 510 however still uses 34nm NAND and manages to either outperform or remain competitive with the Vertex 3 in all key areas. Combine that with Intel's track record for reliability and compatibility and I think we have a winner here.
OCZ does have a MAX IOPS version of the Vertex 3 which uses 32nm Toggle NAND. I'm still waiting on my review sample but it's quite possible that the 120GB MAX IOPS drive will be enough to restore OCZ's performance advantage. There are still firmware concerns of course, which SandForce appears to be actively working on. I'm guessing when the smoke clears the best balance of reliability and performance will still be the 510, at least until the current crop of SF-2200 firmware issues get worked out.
In terms of value, Corsair's P3 is actually pretty impressive. My only concern there is the lack of a public firmware strategy at this point, but based on everything we've seen here today it offers the best performance per dollar out of the group.
It's funny how little the recommendations have changed over the years. Intel still offers a good balance of performance and reliability, however if you're willing to take a risk on the reliability front you can get better value elsewhere.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
68 Comments
View All Comments
icrf - Wednesday, June 8, 2011 - link
Don't forget the Corsair Force Series 3. The manufacturer announced specs are very impressive. We just need it in Anand's hands to see how honest they are.I'm trying to decide between the Vertex 3, Force Series 3, and M4 @ 120 GB. I've seen some of those other reviews on the M4, and it really does seem like it degrades more gracefully than anyone else with the capacity drop, so it could be a real contender @ 120 GB.
DigitalFreak - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - link
"Combine that with Intel's track record for reliability"Hasn't Intel had multiple issues with their drives that caused data loss?
Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - link
All of the SSD vendors have had issues of one form or another, Intel seems to have the lowest return rates however (at least based on the only published data at this point - it is supported by the failures I've noticed first hand however).MrAv8er - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - link
Yes they have their issues. And the reliability question between the Vertex 3 and the Intel 510 is an interesting one. I just bought an I510 120GB over the Vertex 3 because of the reviews posted at Newegg. Complaints ran in the high teens for total failures, which I found too distastfull to accept, therefore I opted to go Intel which faired much better in the reviews. HOWEVER, that being said, I had an 80GB Intel G1 in my rig running Vista 64 coming up 2 years ago. It bricked itself at about the 7 week mark. Intel eventually replaced it, but the whole process took over 3 weeks.zhill - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - link
Good review, another set of excellent data points when considering SSDs. I am actually torn between the older Vertex 2 240GB ($390 on amazon, or $1.6/GB) and a new drive like the 320 300GB or 510 250GB, it will be slower, but for the price it's a sweet deal--as long as it actually works and doesn't become a brick.I would be interested in seeing a power consumption graph for the entire StorageBench (or maybe just the light workload) run on each drive. I just wonder to what extent "speed to idle" impacts SSDs as it does in CPUs. It may be that the changes from load to idle are too slow to seriously affect the overall power draw, but that could also very by manufacturer. I think that would give a better perspective on the power story than just the idle and load numbers.
casteve - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - link
~120GB is the sweet spot for speed/price. Glad to see some maturation in performance - now we can pretty much pick based on firmware maturity/stability and product reliability.jwilliams4200 - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - link
ANAND:Isn't the flash on the back of the Intel 320 board likely used for the XOR parity / RAID-4-like feature of the 320 series? I'm not sure why you did not mention that....
24 db/octave - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - link
With all the various benchmarks available, which is the closest one that would best predict performance as a Photoshop scratch drive? (Not the Windows or application drive.) I think for Photoshop scratch, it is sequential uncompressed writes & reads, that matters most, but I'm not positive.Thanks, Alan
buzznut - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - link
I also wanted to add my thanks for continually providing the most comprehensive and pertinent coverage of SSDs. Certainly right now the 120GB range hits the sweet spot for performance/real estate/value. I have not seen much coverage of the corsair drives yet, so this is great. Bigger drives are prohibitively expensive for the average user. But current drives are more useful than as just boot drives, it makes sense to have enough room to put your favorite programs on.I still think the Vertex3 is the choice for enthusiasts, although its nice to see that intel is still making excellent drives where reliability is key. I am hoping to pick up a vertex3 in the fall after bulldozer hits the desktop. I am sure that firmware will mature by then.
GrizzledYoungMan - Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - link
Question!Would appreciate thoughts on this. I'm on a P55 motherboard, with a free x16 slot. If I wanted to use one of the 6Gbps drives with an add-in controller, what sort of performance hit would I be looking at, best case scenario? And which add-in card to use?
Thanks! Also, this review was pretty darned useful. Bravo.