Intel 520 vs Crucial M4
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
Intel 520 vs Crucial M4
I have to buy a new SSD.
Is Marvell better (more reliable) than Sandforce?
Intel
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820167086
or
Crucial M4
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820148443
Is Marvell better (more reliable) than Sandforce?
Intel
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820167086
or
Crucial M4
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820148443
Re: Intel 520 vs Crucial M4
I would skip Sanforce based ssds. So, out of the two i would go with Crucial M4, cheaper and been in the market for some time with good reviews and user feedback, has gotten a fair amount of firmware and by now its mature enough. I own 2 and not a single issue over a year now.
The only other SSD that i would suggest to consider is the Samsung 830, they do their own controller and nad, their rep with 470 was almost perfect, and the 830 also looks very solid, slightly faster than M4, if you are willing to spend a little more than the M4, then SAMSUNG 830 Series MZ-7PC256B/WW 2.5" 256GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD).
The only other SSD that i would suggest to consider is the Samsung 830, they do their own controller and nad, their rep with 470 was almost perfect, and the 830 also looks very solid, slightly faster than M4, if you are willing to spend a little more than the M4, then SAMSUNG 830 Series MZ-7PC256B/WW 2.5" 256GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD).
Re: Intel 520 vs Crucial M4
I chose Samsung 830 128GB. Samsung 830 seems to be very reliable and fast multipurpose drive.
Re: Intel 520 vs Crucial M4
I would trust Intel over crucual. See:
Comparative Product Returns rates 2011
viewtopic.php?p=555937#p555937
Though Samsung seems to have a good reputation. I still think Intel is the safest bet, regardless of who makes the controller.
Comparative Product Returns rates 2011
viewtopic.php?p=555937#p555937
Though Samsung seems to have a good reputation. I still think Intel is the safest bet, regardless of who makes the controller.
Re: Intel 520 vs Crucial M4
Intel has most probably made their Sandforce-based SSD very reliable by now, so I would not doubt their reliability. And even if the SSD fails, I believe they would do much to solve the issue. But the m4 has been reliable for a long time. Even if Intel has spent millions of hours testing the firmware, no one knows for sure if their firmware is reliable.
Also, the difference in performance is neglectible (this applies to virtually every single SSD's), and the Crucial m4 is cheaper. And I've used their firmware updating application in Windows, and I most say: it's extremely easy to use. The most difficult task is writing "yes" (case sensitive" and pressing "Enter". Just read the instructions provided by Crucial and you should be fine. The update itself only takes a couple of minutes, and no data is wiped at all.
The choice is quite obvious.
Also, the difference in performance is neglectible (this applies to virtually every single SSD's), and the Crucial m4 is cheaper. And I've used their firmware updating application in Windows, and I most say: it's extremely easy to use. The most difficult task is writing "yes" (case sensitive" and pressing "Enter". Just read the instructions provided by Crucial and you should be fine. The update itself only takes a couple of minutes, and no data is wiped at all.
The choice is quite obvious.
Re: Intel 520 vs Crucial M4
Intel 320s 8 MB bug was a disaster, together with the revision B2 chipset bug and the crippled X79 in less than a year I thought they dropped the ball for a while.
Crucial M4s 5000 hour bug was not much of a problem.
The 520 does have a 5 year warranty, tho.
Crucial M4s 5000 hour bug was not much of a problem.
The 520 does have a 5 year warranty, tho.
Re: Intel 520 vs Crucial M4
Yes all troubling. But I still trust Intel more than the others.Mats wrote:Intel 320s 8 MB bug was a disaster, together with the revision B2 chipset bug and the crippled X79 in less than a year
Re: Intel 520 vs Crucial M4
So, basically, you're saying that you'd prefer to buy a possibly defective product from a company with good support/warranty (Intel) than a good and stable product from a company with slightly less good support/warranty (Crucial)?ces wrote:Yes all troubling. But I still trust Intel more than the others.Mats wrote:Intel 320s 8 MB bug was a disaster, together with the revision B2 chipset bug and the crippled X79 in less than a year
-
- SPCR Reviewer
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 8:22 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
Re: Intel 520 vs Crucial M4
Actually, yes. I'd much rather buy from a company that has a good support track record, regardless of any unproven potential issues. How many stability concerns regarding the 520 have you heard yet?
On that note - how many issues have you heard recently since the latest Sandforce firmware was made available for SF-2281 drives? I haven't heard anyone complaining about an active issue with regards to blue screens or stability since OCZ released firmware 2.15 (and the others released their equivalent firmware versions).
On that note - how many issues have you heard recently since the latest Sandforce firmware was made available for SF-2281 drives? I haven't heard anyone complaining about an active issue with regards to blue screens or stability since OCZ released firmware 2.15 (and the others released their equivalent firmware versions).
Re: Intel 520 vs Crucial M4
Your words not mine. SSD's have to many unknown unkowns that are known to the manufacturers.rpsgc wrote:So, basically, you're saying that you'd prefer to buy a possibly defective product from a company with good support/warranty (Intel) than a good and stable product from a company with slightly less good support/warranty (Crucial)?
I trust Intel to do the right SSD design tradeoffs and testing. The other manufacturers just don't seem to be inclined to spend the extra time and money to deal with flaws, other than those that hurt short term sales.
Re: Intel 520 vs Crucial M4
I get what you're saying, but in this case "the other manufacturer" is Micron.ces wrote:The other manufacturers just don't seem to be inclined to spend the extra time and money to deal with flaws, other than those that hurt short term sales.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micron_Technologywikipedia wrote:Micron Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: MU) is an American multinational corporation based in Boise, Idaho, USA, best known for producing many forms of semiconductor devices. This includes DRAM, SDRAM, flash memory, SSD and CMOS image sensing chips. Consumers may be more familiar with its new consumer brand Crucial Technology and retail subsidiary Lexar Media. Micron Technology is among the worldwide top 20 semiconductor sales leaders. Micron and Intel together created IM Flash Technologies, which produces NAND flash memory.
I own both a Crucial M4 (Marvel) and a OCZ Agility 2 (Sandforce), and fortunately have had zero problems with either of them.
In any case, the OP wanted opinions on Intel's 520 (Sandforce SF-2281 with Intel's firmware) and Crucial's M4. Both of these designs are trustworthy, in my opinion. The M4 has a proven track record, and the 520 benefits from Intel's firmware.
Re: Intel 520 vs Crucial M4
Micron is a credible company. So is McDonalds..Jay_S wrote:I get what you're saying, but in this case "the other manufacturer" is Micron.
McDonalds takes a certain approach to its market and its food quality. And implements that approach in a world class manner.
Chipotle (which I believe was at one time was owned by McDonalds) and Whole Foods Market take an entirely different approach to food quality.
You can rely on McDonalds taking the lowest cost approach and not wasting money on things like organic ingredients and meat without antibiotics.
Food has lots of unkown unkowns that are known to the producers and purveyors of food.
McDonalds is not a bad company. I just trust food products I buy from Chipotle and Whole Foods Market more... especially regarding things I can't see or may not be aware of.