TechSpot: Intel SSD 520 Series 240GB Review

It's not the first time Intel is using third-party controllers, in fact it had previously favored the Marvell 88SS9174 for their SSD 510 Series. Since the days of the original X25-M SSD, Intel solid state storage products have been characterized for being the most stable and reliable around. With the company now willing to use the SandForce SF-2281, it proves that the controller has reached a certain desired level of maturity.

However, as the company has done with previous SSD products, Intel has adopted the SandForce SF-2281 controller but they have co-defined and validated the firmware for an Intel unique implementation. In other words, the SSD 520 Series drives will differ to similar products in terms of performance and reliability in spite of using the same controller.

The Intel SSD 520 Series will be available in 60GB, 120GB, 180GB, 240GB and 480GB capacities. Pricing starts at $150 for the 60GB model, the 240GB version we are testing is said to cost $510, while the flagship 480GB model will set you back a whopping $1,000. Should that pricing be accurate the SSD 520 Series will be considerably more expensive than existing SF-2281 drives. Read on to learn more about Intel's new premium consumer SSD.

Read: Intel SSD 520 Series 240GB Review
This article is brought to you in partnership with TechSpot

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Verizon and Redbox team up to launch Netflix killer

Next Story

White Lumia 800 coming to Europe "soon"

13 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I bought a Western Digital 1.250 GB conventional for £240 about 1995, can people stop saying these are too expensive.

Yeah! Why should mass production, technological advancement and competition give consumers a lower price? I say that the company should just keep the profit, making a WD 1TB drive cost £192'000 using your old drive as a comparison.

all my machines have SSD's. 64GB in my file server for windows/mail server/IIS web server, 32GB in my desktop for windows + BF3 (hate long load times), and 16GB in my HTPC (already fast, but wanted it faster). SSD's are fantastic.

If I'm being honest, going to an SSD with windows 7 made a HUGE difference, it was amazing... Since then I've switched to arch linux, 32 bit on a 20GB maxtor drive and I kid you not, it ran about the same speed as windows 7 on an SSD does.
Changed to a 30GB quantum fireball drive now and went to 64 bit arch and this thing runs like ****.
Going from mechinical -> SSD =
Going from SSD -> mechinical = depressing.

Not worth the premium price over OCZ SSD. I just bought a 120GB vertex 3 for about the same price of the 520 60GB model. 169.99 CAD with a 20 CAD MIR for a great total of 149.99 for 120GB so the same price as the 60GB 520 once i'll have the MIR money.

Intel might be more reliable (doubt it) but it's not worth having half the space for the same price.

LaP said,
Intel might be more reliable (doubt it) but it's not worth having half the space for the same price.

They are more reliable. Intel is the only SSD brand I could depend on at this point.

Enron said,

They are more reliable. Intel is the only SSD brand I could depend on at this point.

You can live with more reliability for twice the price ?

Unless you are buying for a server in raid i don't see how.

I can buy 2 OCZ or Corsair ssd for the price of one intel ssd. If i get unlucky and the ocz/corsair one break then i buy a new one (probably even bigger as price go down in time) for a total price of the one intel ssd (that can break too even if more reliable).

I have had a vertex 2 for one year and no problem so far. It's a 240GB and i paid far less than the current price of a 240GB intel ssd.

And this intel ssd is sf 2281 based. Reviews say it's magically more reliable than other sf 2281 but reviewers also saif vertex 3 and other sf 2281 ssd did not have any problem when they reviewed them. Bottom line is sf 2281 is not reliable and i'm not sure intel sells enough ssd to consumer to know if it will really be more reliable than others sf 2281 ssd out there.

^ Yep My crappy SSD which is also an Intel 80gb is showing read speeds of only 65 mb's, but the boot time is WAY Faster on my i7 920. Everything is blink speed.

Not related to the article per se. But if anyone has thought of buying a SSD for their OS and/or games, I can guarantee you it's the best upgrade you can make to your PC. The difference is huge!

Too expensive I'm going to wait until biology atom level storage is out.

[/sarcasm]

I bought a Western Digital 1.250 GB conventional for £240 about 1995, can people stop saying these are too expensive.

SSD are awesome anybody that is still waiting needs to stop listening to the have-nots.

stevember said,
Too expensive I'm going to wait until biology atom level storage is out.

[/sarcasm]

I bought a Western Digital 1.250 GB conventional for £240 about 1995, can people stop saying these are too expensive.

SSD are awesome anybody that is still waiting needs to stop listening to the have-nots.

It is definitely cheaper than standard RAM... but... $1000.00 (for one of the 500 gig drives) is still a lot of money to shell out... that would be half the cost again of the computer I built last year. On the other hand I pine for the speed, but I just can't justify the $$$ when my kids need food.