Intel vs Kingston, who wins in raid0?

[tom thumb]

I am considering two ssd drives for a raid 0 array:

Kingston SSD Now V-series 128Gb
Intel X25-M 80Gb

It will be used for windows boot as well as apps and games (I have a lot of apps and games).

The two drives can be found here:
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167016
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820139135

IMO these two drives have the highest ratings and a fair price. Both drives support TRIM and have similar "rated speeds", for Kingston r/w is 200/160 (corrected from 200/110), for Intel its 250/70.

I know about how Intel's have 7% hidden spare area, which improves speed but the Kingston drives are bigger, and so I have more room to create a spare partition.

People say that the Intel drive is faster, yet what I mentioned so far suggests otherwise (intel wins at read, but looses at write), what am I missing?

I will be using this drive heavily (60-80% capacity), and I'd like to choose the one that will perform well in an array in the long term.

So which should I choose? Also, are there any others that I should consider?

 

[sub mesa]

Kingston is about the slowest SSDs out there, Intel is about the fastest SSDs out there; so they definitely are not similar at all!

By the way, when comparing SSDs; look at the IOps rate; not the MB/s. The sequential throughput speed is not primarily relevant for the function of the system drive.

 

[tom thumb]

Thanks Submesa

I've read a few reviews and it seems that you're right. Despite what Kingston says about the speed of their drives, they don't compare to Intel's. They seem inferior in every way except price and write speed.

But my question was why? Is it just a marketing gimmick?

... and why are Intel's drives so slow at writing?