Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

X25-M 160GB vs. 120GB Callisto

Last response: in Storage
May 15, 2010 10:50:28 AM

Hi all, I am just looking for input on which SSD would be better for my uses/money. I've narrowed it down to the two drives in the title. I need about 80GB of space minimum, but more would be great, especially since I've heard that SSDs do better with more free space (this may not be true). It is my understanding that the Callisto, which is based on the newer Sandforce controller will outperform the older Intel. This drive will be used as a boot drive and will hold a large number of spreadsheets (the Excel macros is where performance is important for me). On the other hand, if the performance difference here is not great, and since the prices are similar, would the X25-M be a better choice? Thank you for your time!

And yes I know the Mushkin is out of stock right now. :) 
May 15, 2010 1:08:33 PM

Right now any ssd will be a ridiculous performance increase over any hdd. That said the differences between controllers will be negligible to most average users however this isn't a site for average users. Out of the two you chose I would pick the intel, not because of performance but because they have have been on the market long enough to prove themselves reliable. Sandforce just came out and they definitely look good but they have had some bugs, not that that is unusual for ssd's. Also the sandforce use a compression algorithm to write to the drive so compressed files actually slow it down.
a c 143 G Storage
May 15, 2010 4:02:37 PM


I love my Intel X25-M G2 80GB SSD... :) 

Another option but cost a little more is going with the OCZ Agility 2 100GB SSD. OCZ's have been out a while like Intel and I would trust their new Sandforce drives over Mushkin who is just getting into the SSD market.