SSD Verdict. What would you do?

Does your laptop have SATA III (6 Gb/s) capability? If it does, then go for the Crucial C300 256 GB ssd.

Yeah, it does. I was pretty set on the C300 until I read some horror stories about that drive. :S That's why I am looking for other options.

Horror stories? Must be the old firmware issues when the drives were first released. The issues were solved with firmware updates. It should no longer be a problem.

Over a year ago I chose a 160GB Intel X25-M G2 drive for my desktop system because at the time it felt like the most robust product. I was more interested in reliability than getting the very best-performing drive, based on the fact that any SSD is way, way faster than any HDD - so the small differences between competing top-tier SSDs weren't an issue.

The drive worked very well for me and I've never had any issues or complaints with it. And a recent report seems to have vindicated my decision by showing that the Intel SSDs have been heads and shoulders more reliable than those from the other vendors.

Based on my experience, if I was in exactly the same situation as you were right now I'd be buying another Intel drive.

hmm.. so 1 Intel & 1 Crucial so far... this is blurring my already-blurred question.  

Tom's Hardware just published a brand new article a few hours ago that might help you decide:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-ssd-price-per-...

For reliability, as sminlal indicated INTEL by far. If memory serve me right about 4 X higher than next closest SSD.
For Performance, (You did indicate Drive connect to a SATA III controller) Vertex-3 or C400 - SKIP the C300. for starter - Very poor GC not to important as long as trim is enabled and PASSED to SSD.

What is you SATA III controller, as Intel's is not out yet so should be a 3rd party such as Marvel??

I would get the Intel 160GB for $225. And BTW that sounds like a really good deal. The rest of us can't get that kind of deal on anything over 120GB.

I have studied the reliability ratings for various drives and the Intel models and the Crucial 300 are the most reliable. Lots of mainstream drives have horrible reliability ratings. Despite the general feeling that an SSD should be more reliable than a mechanical hard drive, they get much poorer ratings from users.

For the first time, we also integrate SSDs in this article type. The rates of failure recorded by manufacturer:

- Intel 0.59%
- Corsair 2.17%
- Crucial 2.25%
- Kingston 2.39%
- OCZ 2.93%

http://forums.storagereview.com/index.php/topic/29329-s...

On another site found Intel = 2%, C300 4% Rest of SSDs were higher Percentage.

Not that I really care one way or the other, but how did they come up with those fugures though?

Do they know the total drives sold from each mfgr?

I know OCZ has sold more than 1 million so far and over 400 thousand are Sandforce based. With all the Sandforce compatibility issues alone.. it would skew the result and make it appear to be due to the vendors who package the components. Is a perspective and numbers game.

IOW, if Intel would have used the SF controller?.. they may have had increased numbers in that respect as well. Many, including myself were actually hoping that Intel would adopt that bastard son to help straighten out all the issues quicker. lol

For the link I posted, the figures are "based on metrics from a French retailer’s internal sales and repairs database". It's the only independent data I've seen other than anecdotal reports (which I find to be basically useless). While its accuracy is perhaps suspect because we don't know the sales volumes and therefore the degree of confidence in the percentages, it's certainly a lot better than nothing.

My strategy might be crude and certainly not perfect- I study the user feedback on newegg.com for any product I'm interested in. Reviewers can give 1 to 5 "eggs" depending on how well they liked or disliked the product. I will sometimes read the actual reviews from people that gave 1 or 2 eggs and these can be reveailing. Sometimes people complain for things that I think are unreasonable and not really related to the product itself, but other times people actually complain about the failure or poor performance of the product. I've noticed that lots of the current SSD models have high percentages of users giving just 1 or 2 eggs. I read the reviews and there are a lot of complaints about product failures. Now I've noticed with electronic products that if at least 90% of people give 3 or more eggs, it is somewhat rare and probably a very good product. Very few products do better than 90%. I've noticed that a lot of SSD's only do 75% or less. If 1/4 or more of buyers give the product 1 or 2 eggs I start to think that it must be a pretty bad product.

That has the potential to be very misleading - people with problems are more motivated to complain than people without problems are to praise. Secondly, a popular product may end up with a higher number of complaints even if it has a smaller percentage of actual problems.