The Intel SSD 330 Review (60GB, 120GB, 180GB)
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 1, 2012 12:01 AM ESTFinal Words
Of the available SandForce drives, I've felt most comfortable recommending Intel's own. The pass through Intel's validation labs provides that extra peace of mind that hopefully translates into a better overall experience. In the past Intel has been a reliable option in the market but not necessarily the most affordable. The 330 attempts to correct the latter. While other drives are cheaper, the 330 does give you a unique combination of an Intel validated drive at a competitive price point.
The performance delta between the 330 and the 520 is narrow enough that I don't see a reason to recommend the 520 unless you need a higher capacity drive. The loss of endurance is likely something no typical end user would ever notice. Perhaps the lower p/e cycle is enough to keep the 330 out of write heavy enterprise deployments, but otherwise it's a non-issue.
The biggest problem with Intel's SSD 330 really stems from the limitations of its SandForce controller. Performance with incompressible (or software encrypted) data is hardly competitive. As an unencrypted OS/application drive the 330 is great, but if you're planning on using software encryption or will be primarily storing photos, videos and music you'll want to opt for a drive based on a different controller technology.
In the end it's good to see Intel playing aggressively on price. The 330 is likely one of the best SandForce drives on the market, and not having to pay a premium for it is pretty awesome.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
64 Comments
View All Comments
Ender17 - Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - link
Thanks Anand, you guys are awesome.Slash3 - Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - link
Ditto this sentiment. I've been coming to AT since it was a Geocities site and you never cease to impress me, Anand, with your willingness to address little things like this that pop up every once in a while.Thank you!
pandemonium - Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - link
*cheer*chaudx - Thursday, August 2, 2012 - link
Thanks for fixing that garbage!etamin - Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - link
It's nice to see SSD prices are hovering around the $1/GB mark these days. The 256GB Vertex 4 is looking awfully attractive (wonder how the reliability is?).I really liked the endurance testing on the 330's NAND, it really puts real world usage into perspective. On the other hand, I wonder if the rate of E9 falling is exponential rather than linear...
TrackSmart - Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - link
I wouldn't touch another OCZ branded SSD with a 10 foot pole. You often save $20 or get slightly higher performance (that is only visible in benchmarks), but the failure rate on their products is just unacceptably high. And yes, I'm basing this on the data that is available (which is imperfect), the huge proportion of negative reviews for failed drives (also imperfect info), and my own personal experience (limited sample size). I say go Intel, Crucial, or Samsung - unless you really enjoy the RMA process. Plus, the good deals almost always involve rebates. I hate rebates.Some data (even if imperfect):
http://www.behardware.com/articles/862-7/component...
Zoomer - Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - link
It's more like 66¢ per gb on sale.lyeoh - Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - link
Go to newegg/amazon, go look at the various SSDs. Go compare the percentage of one stars OCZ gets vs say Intel or Crucial or Samsung get. All manufacturers have duds (and stupid customers), but if you read the reviews and look at the stats, you'd see not all manufacturers are equally crap when it comes to SSDs.See also the OCZ return rates from the various behardware reports (they have a long track record of high return rates). It's so bad that I'd avoid sandforce based stuff including Intel's versions.
Perhaps they are more sensitive to crappy power supplies or users... Maybe things have improved.
Flying Goat - Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - link
Nice? It's bloody awful! I bought a pair of 128s earlier this year for almost twice that. :( Well...1.5 times that.mayankleoboy1 - Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - link
Could the E9 readings be faulty due to a older software? Did you check with other SMART readers?