Fantastic sequential read and write performance is a trademark of modern SSDs. To measure it, we use incompressible data over a 16 GB LBA space, then test at queue depths from one to 16. We're reporting these numbers in binary (where 1 KB equals 1024) instead of decimal numbers (where 1 KB is 1000 bytes). When necessary, we're also limiting the scale of the chart to enhance readability.
128 KB Sequential Read

The SSD 530, 525, and 520 are very similar, despite different firmware, form factors (in the case of the SSD 525), and flash (in the case of the SSD 530).
We test the three Intel drives using easily compressible repeating data and difficult-to-compress random payloads. Immediately, it's easy to distinguish one workload from the other in our chart.
Subjected to repeating data, the three SandForce drives crest 500 MB/s in sequential reads. With incompressible data, that number falls a bit short. The SSD 530 takes a slightly larger hit, maxing out closer to 400 MB/s than 500.
Bottom line: as we've come to expect over the years, SandForce-controlled drives don't suffer much during reads when the data patterns tend to be incompressible. That "honor", if you want to call it that, is reserved for writes.
128 KB Sequential Write
Take just one guess. Which cluster represents incompressible data patterns, and which one is characterized by repeating data?
The SSD 530, 525, and 520 all take fairly large hits writing incompressible data, though this shouldn't be news by now. You'll see a ceiling of about 250 MB/s in our Iometer testing, in the same range as any other SSD based on second-gen SandForce hardware and ONFi-compatible flash. Given 180 GB of capacity, these drives fall between where 120 and 240 GB repositories would land.
Of course, when it comes to manufacturer specs, you're only going to see those ambitious compressible data results since they look so much better.
Here's a break-down of the maximum observed 128 KB sequential read and write performance with Iometer:
The SSD 520, 525, and 530 are each represented here by their compressible and incompressible transfer results. Intel's SSD 530 appears amongst rarefied company when it's fed repeating data, showing up between SanDisk's über Extreme II 480 GB and the 1000 GB 840 EVO.
Change the data's entropy, however, and the SSD 530 doesn't do as well. In the chart above, I have its benchmark numbers with incompressible data in yellow. That's a pretty significant drop. To be fair, the SSD 530 still places well. It isn't too far off from Crucial's M500 at 240 GB, and it turns in better numbers than the M500 at 120 GB.
- Putting Intel's 180 GB SSD 530 To The Test
- Inside The Box, Test Setup, And Benchmarks
- Results: 128 KB Sequential Performance
- Results: 4 KB Random Performance
- Results: Tom's Hardware Storage Bench
- Results: Tom's Hardware Storage Bench, Continued
- Results: PCMark Vantage And PCMark 7
- Results: File Copy Performance With Robocopy
- Results: Power Consumption
- SSD 530 Offers Sassy Looks, Solid Performance, And So-So Pricing


As well we wont see much of a difference in performance until SATA Express (8Gb/16Gb) and even then we might not notice it.
The main benefit is lowering the price. If it sells for $170 that's a bit lower than $1/GB which is good since Intel is always a bit pricier than others.
As well we wont see much of a difference in performance until SATA Express (8Gb/16Gb) and even then we might not notice it.
The main benefit is lowering the price. If it sells for $170 that's a bit lower than $1/GB which is good since Intel is always a bit pricier than others.
I can't, in good conscience, recommend anyone actually buy the 180 GB 530 -- not when the retail boxed 240 GB is only $198.
Jay Crest (the 335) is a few bucks less, and its 240 GB edition is hovering near $180. Nice, but for just $20 more, grab the 530 240 GB box and call it a day... if for no other reason than the extra warranty coverage.
Regards,
Christopher Ryan
If you look at the number of models and form-factors available for the 530, I'd say this product line is primarily about one thing: Distribution.
The price points for the 240-256GB capacity drives have come down enough where they're probably ready for the mainstream. You see this with Samsung's aggressive (and cheesy) marketing of it's EVO line to the mass consumer market, and this is Intel's attempt to achieve maximum penetration into that market.
About two months ago, I refreshed my 2-year-old primary work laptop with the Intel 335 240GB. It was on a special at Newegg for $50 off at $170. Now that same drive lists for $180. For a work PC, I was waiting for SSD affordability in the 240-256GB range before pulling the trigger, as anything less would lead to too much hassle moving files around between drives. So, I upgraded from a single 500GB HDD that was getting slower by the day to a 240GB SSD for my primary and a new 750GB secondary HDD running in a caddy in the ODD bay. With this upgrade, I believe I'm set for the next couple of years with this laptop, given the lower pace of development for core CPU tech.
Overall I'd say that the 530 performance numbers in this article are disappointing, although low power consumption certainly is valuable for the laptop market. Still, I think the market expects performance improvement along with power efficiency improvement, even though reality is you probably wouldn't notice the difference in everyday use.
It would have been good to see the performance numbers for the 240GB drive, as that really is the minimum point where you could reasonably get away with running a SSD as your sole system drive. With the prices coming down at that capacity, there certainly is a point in marketing SSD affordability in the mainstream segment.
The other main selling point for me was reliability. Samsung leads the pack here with Intel not far behind. I passed over the Sandisk Ultra Plus 256GB recommended in Tom's "Best SSD's for the $$" due to a high percentage of 1-star ratings on Newegg and only 2-year warranty. It came down to the 335 and the 840 Evo, with the Evo having slightly better performance and the 335 at that point being about $30 cheaper with the Newegg Promo. I went with the lower price and the rest is history.
For those contemplating upgrading to a consumer grade SSD, don't sweat the minor performance differences. Go with a good brand and a line with good reliability ratings. Do the hard work of re-installing a fresh copy of Windows (instead of using a migration utility), and your system will be flying. I couldn't be happier with this upgrade.
Intel's post x-25 SSDs' only claim for fame is "reliability" which is nothing but a mantra. Intel's SSD are no more or less reliable than any other manufacturer's. They do give a five-year warranty, true, but it means nothing. They break down just as often as others do, and because of this, Intel pays a bit more by sending replacement drives. This is small potatoes, a minute cost to pay to be considered "more reliable" by those less informed. Especially since the warranty does not cover all the hassle and expenses that come from actually replacing the broken drive (you must stop working, start waiting, install the new drive, move all the data, etc). Of course its nice to live in the beautiful illusion that by buying an Intel SSD I am more safe from all this.
I would never buy this over a Samsung-product that is less expensive, has greater performance and equal reliability. I can't understand why this article concludes like it does. It should say: "There is nothing wrong with 530, but you can get better for cheaper, so stay away from 530."
Regards,
Christopher Ryan
So like others said, what is new here? shouldn't the conclusion be "buy it only if it is cheaper than all the other drives" or "buy it... the sticker looks cool"