I'm deciding between Intel 510, Crucial C300 and Crucial M4. Reliability is important for me, and I don't mind if I lose a little bit of speed at the expense of more reliability (so I wont go for OCZ!). C300 and M4 are faster than 510, so I'll probably choose one of those two, but I don't really know which one!
The opinions I read on the net are 50-50. Which one is gonna be faster in a real life scenario?
Size matters. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Productcompare.aspx?Submi...|20-148-441^20-148-441-TS%2C20-148-357^20-148-357-02%23%2C20-148-448^20-148-448-TS%2C20-148-442^20-148-442-TS%2C20-148-362^20-148-362-TS Overall, the m4 is the speedier version. I would go for the m4 series instead. It has better read and write speed.
I would go with the cheapest for your required capacity!! (IMO) The Intel 510 & Crucial m4 are excellent drives & have proven to be reliable ones at thar. Intel has the track record of being the most reliable but the Crucial isn't far behind.
As for the 34nm vs 25nm, I wouldn't let that weigh to heavy on your decision. Under normal uses, these drives will last 3+ years & to the point of you needing to upgrade anyways... IMO.
The only area in which Intel 510 totally sucks is "random performance". That's the only thing that has held me back from going with 510. How much does random performance matter anyway in everyday usage? Is it a good indicator of how fast the drive is in real life usage?
The Crucial C300 is an "older drive". The Crucial M4 is supposed to be the new and improved version of the C300. It is replacing the C300. The M4 had a bit of a problem but Crucial issued a firmware update that not only fixed the problem but also improved M4 performance.
The Intel 510 got beat up by hardcore gamers and die hard enthusiasts who were obsessed with synthetic benchmarks. I never understood it. Synthetic benchmarks are artificial. At best they can only be a very rough approximation of real world performance.
Most, but not all, modern solid state drives form a fairly tight performance cluster. Typical everyday users can't distinquish any differences in that cluster. The synthetic benchmarks were designed to grossly exaggerate relatively minor differences in performance. Manufacturers manipulated the benchmarks for marketing purposes. It would be completely different if you were doing some sort of professional work.