Corsair SSD \/S OCZ SSD - Which one should I buy?

[intel1502]

Hey everybody, I'm building my SB gaming rig around May 16th and want to get a SSD before my case (Corsair 650D) comes in. I've got two choices;

-OCZ Vertex 2 60GB (285mb/275mb); 140$
-Corsair Performance 3 64GB (375mb/110mb); 200$

I will be using the SSD for boot only, so 60GB+ will definitely do. Would the additional read speeds of the corsair model make up for the lost write speeds (read most important, as it's for speedy booting)...

I have to make a decision soon, as the SSD needs to be shipped from the stores' head office.
I am leaning towards the SATA6 Corsair model due to it's high reads.
What would be best bet for me, and why?

All responses appreciated...

 

[groberts101]

for that price difference I would be looking at comparing the 120GB Vertex 2 as it's only $10-20 more and twice the capacity with slightly faster incompressible write speeds.

The one to really look for though is the revamped version that uses 34nm nand again as it's even faster and comparible to the original models.

I probably wouldn't recommend the 60GB model that has the newer 25nm nand as it lost a bit of its zip in the change over and you could even potentially get one of the short channeled drives that caused all the fuss.

You could however buy the newer part number which has 34nm nand in that smaller capacity as well. here's the product page and shows the different part numbers to get what you want.
http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-vertex-2-sata-ii-2-5-ssd.html

 

[shin0bi272]

I did a lot of research before buying my ssd (I was looking at the 120gb range though) and I ended up buying the vertex2

 

[JordoR]

Make sure you think hard about what capacity SSD you want. I like shinobi did a lot of research when looking for my SSD and ending up getting the 60 GB Vertex 2.

I am completely happy with it, however I really wish I had gone with the larger 120GB version. And since the new Vertex 3 has come out, yesterday I saw the 120GB vertex 2 for $150 after rebates.

The thing is, after you put windows 7, microsoft office, adobe, a few games, etc.. you are already at the 60 GB limit. I find myself in a constant battle to install/uninstall games just to have enough space (since most new games are about 12GB these days!). I wish I had invested in the 120GB version, and that's why I'm suggesting it to you.

 

[intel1502]

Yeah, but i'm not putting; adobe, MS office or any games on it! I'd personally rather have my 100GB of games on my HDD then splitting the between HDD/SSD. Like I said, it's ONLY for boot.

 

[epiphanyplx]

I also thought I would just use my SSD for boot and got the 80 GB Intel X-25M G2 a while ago. I wish I had gone bigger! At first I just had the operating system and drivers/flash/divx etc on the SSD but after putting photoshop on it I realized what a huge difference it made in performance for Apps. (Not to mention loading times in games!)

I recommend getting a slightly bigger one so you can store at least your applications on it if not your games.

 

[Bigmac80]

Both are good but i would i go with Corsair or Intel because of the customer service..

 

[intel1502]

I also thought I would just use my SSD for boot and got the 80 GB Intel X-25M G2 a while ago. I wish I had gone bigger! At first I just had the operating system and drivers/flash/divx etc on the SSD but after putting photoshop on it I realized what a huge difference it made in performance for Apps. (Not to mention loading times in games!)

I recommend getting a slightly bigger one so you can store at least your applications on it if not your games.

Yeah, but just to put my games on, I'd need a 180GB SSD @ least + SSDs are super expensive in Australia. If I had the two out and you could take one, which one would you pick?
- 64GB Corsair P3-64GB (370mb/110mb)
- 80GB OCZ Vertex 2 (285mb/275mb)

 

[shin0bi272]

if its only for boot then you wont really see any improvements other than booting since all of your programs will be loading from the spinning hard drive.

 

[geofelt]

Consider an Intel 320 series SSD.
Intel, in the past has had a lower return rate:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/810-6/components-returns-rates.html

With sandy bridge, you will get 6gb sata. You might think that it would be good to get a SSD that can use that speed. That is what synthetic benchmarks show.

But, the reason you are getting a SSD is for the OS which does lots of small random reads and writes. For that pattern, most any SSD will perform about the same.

I would save on the faster synthetic benchmarking drives and spend it on a 80gb Intel 320 ssd.

 

[tecmo34]

Yeah, but just to put my games on, I'd need a 180GB SSD @ least + SSDs are super expensive in Australia. If I had the two out and you could take one, which one would you pick?
- 64GB Corsair P3-64GB (370mb/110mb)
- 80GB OCZ Vertex 2 (285mb/275mb)

OCZ Vertex 2 would be my choice!!

 

[JordoR]

Yeah, but just to put my games on, I'd need a 180GB SSD @ least + SSDs are super expensive in Australia. If I had the two out and you could take one, which one would you pick?
- 64GB Corsair P3-64GB (370mb/110mb)
- 80GB OCZ Vertex 2 (285mb/275mb)

The Vertex 2, hands down. I have always been happy with the performance and stability of mine, and I know many people who would agree.

 

[intel1502]

OCZ Vertex 2 would be my choice!!

If you could give justification for your reasoning, I'd be happy to 'best answer' you, but am still stuck at a crossroad. Do the SATA3 drives REALLY justify forking out 50% more than their SATA2 counter-parts? All I can see is a diminished write for a slightly faster read - Am I missing something; Is it only me that doesn't see the advantages of these drives ?

 

[geofelt]

Benchmarks of ssd's are not very useful in determining how satisfied the typical desktop user will be with any particular drive. Benchmarks do not measure how we actually use our drives.

They all have massively 20x+ better performance than hard drives, particularly for the OS which mostly does small random reads and writes.
If you compare the AS SSD benchmarks for read and write times, they all are remarkably similar.
The average user does not generate queue lengths of 32 which is often used to stress the drives. We do not care about MB/sec for anything, we care how long it takes to do a maintenance update, like installing sp1. We care how fast out web page comes back. We care how trouble free our SSD is, and how much it costs for the capacity we need.

There is a lot of hype and marketing going on.


As an early adopter, I paid too much for a 120gb Intel 510. I would have been better off with a 160gb 320 drive.
Previous experiences with a X25-m 160gb gen2 drive were good, and I really can't tell the difference in everyday usage.



My conclusion is: Do not pay much extra for 6gb capable drives.
Pay a small bit more for Intel because of better user experiences.
Do get a SSD, You can tell the difference.

 

[intel1502]

Best answer selected by intel1502.