New, reliable, SSD; Intel 520 or Kingston HyperX?


Recommended Posts

Given this thread I am kinda looking for a more reliable SSD than my current OCZ as a boot disk for my main computer.

I have two in mind: Intel 520 120 GB or Kingston HyperX 120 GB

Which one do you guys recommend and why?

I can use the SATA III connection and speed, because my mobo supports it.

Personally I'd avoid SandForce based models...

Glassed Silver:mac

care to explain why? they've corrected pretty much all the original issues with sandforce controllers... and its one of the widest used controllers now that intel helps with its development

care to explain why? they've corrected pretty much all the original issues with sandforce controllers... and its one of the widest used controllers now that intel helps with its development

Hmm interesting...

I shall look into comparison tables then again sooner or later...

Still waiting for decent prices for 500GB models. Or ideally 1TB drives...

Glassed Silver:mac

Since I'm now officially a soon-to-be member of this still rather exclusive club of SSD owners, may I suggest, with my limited knowledge, the Vertex 4? I know you don't want an OCZ again, but since the V4 has a Marvell based controller instead of Sandforce (as with previous installments of the Vertex line), perhaps you will reconsider? But if not, and you're set on one of the two you mentioned, I'd probably go for the Intel 520. As far as specs go, they seem about the same. I haven't heard anything about Kingston SSD's, but Intel's are always mentioned in a favorable light.

  • Like 1

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226236

I know it has the Sandforce controller, but I just built a rig for a friend and used the 60 gig model of this drive and it works great. No firmware updates were needed to fix any issues, which is more than I can say for my SSD, among others.

It's 120 gig for under 100 bucks. 90k IOPS, 550 meg/sec read 515 meg/sec write and comes with the adapter bracket. I'm thinking about picking up two for a disk stripe.

SandForce is definitely maturing with Intel at the helm. Of the two I'd recommend that one for reliability.

If you're taking suggestions and manage to find Shiven's thread about SSDs we came to the conclusion either the Vertex 4 or the Crucial M4 are the way to go. I've owned two Crucial drives already (and only upgraded for increased capacity) and they're rock solid and fast. The Vertex 4 shies away from SandForce and uses an Indilinx Everest 2 controller which is also a viable alternative, with an even faster write speed than the M4. Retailers tend to price the Vertex 4 a little higher than the M4, so it depends on whether the price difference is worth it if you take either into consideration.

Will the Vertex 4 give me the same issues as my other Vertex's 1 and 2?

Or are these controller-related and/or model/time related?

What issues have you had? I've used every version of OCZ SSD (except for the 4) and they are all still running strong.

I'm assuming you have the latest firmware running on them, correct?

Sorry to jump the thread but I have a question re: SSD. I'm doing a new build and am curious what kind of perfomance there is when Win7 is on SSD but games are on HDD? Is there a noticeable hit? Should I wait and get the biggest SSD I can afford?

Sorry to jump the thread but I have a question re: SSD. I'm doing a new build and am curious what kind of perfomance there is when Win7 is on SSD but games are on HDD? Is there a noticeable hit? Should I wait and get the biggest SSD I can afford?

You'll probably be able to read them at whatever speed your HDD is at. I assume it would be similar to plugging in an external HDD and running a game off of that. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

Personally I'd avoid SandForce based models...

+1. Sandforce does not equal reliability. I really wish Intel had not moved to Sandforce; bad move IMO. They may have fixed the issues in their firmware, but time will tell.

As for a recommendation, I have bought 50+ Samsung 830s, both in 128Gb and 256Gb models and they are excellent. Very fast, reliable and work as well in Macs as they do in PCs. You can't go wrong.

http://www.anandtech...-ssd-830-review

http://www.anandtech...-to-sandforce/9

Sorry to jump the thread but I have a question re: SSD. I'm doing a new build and am curious what kind of perfomance there is when Win7 is on SSD but games are on HDD? Is there a noticeable hit? Should I wait and get the biggest SSD I can afford?

Load times are really the only area you'll see an improvement. Is it nice? Yes, but not absolutely necessary.

I wouldn't get anything smaller than a 128GB drive considering they don't cost any more than $150 or so.

What issues have you had? I've used every version of OCZ SSD (except for the 4) and they are all still running strong.

I'm assuming you have the latest firmware running on them, correct?

Yes I have all latest firmware.

I have to plug out the powercable once in a while to get the SSD recognized again. Kinda annoying I must say.....

I had an OCZ Vertex 2 and recently swapped it out for a Kingston Hyper X 240GB, as I needed more space. Also got another Kingston for my laptop to replace the drive. I don't run any benchmarks, so I can't give y ou any numbers, but I have had no problems with either one.

snapback.pngsoLoredd, on 30 May 2012 - 23:35, said:

Sorry to jump the thread but I have a question re: SSD. I'm doing a new build and am curious what kind of perfomance there is when Win7 is on SSD but games are on HDD? Is there a noticeable hit? Should I wait and get the biggest SSD I can afford?

SSD's have much faster reads and writes, so whatever it is you want to have running faster, put it on the SSD. If you want games to run faster (less load times, better response - also widely depends on games), then it makes no sense in putting Windows on the SSD and the games on a regular HDD.

On the other hand, if you get an 128GB SSD, with almost every game now coming out having over 10GB in size, you'll run out of space fast.

Reliability? Samsung.

Speed? OCZ/Kingston.

Best of both worlds? Might be the Vertex 4 if the controller is really a custom Indilinx controller and not a re-branded Marvell like I've seen some people claim. Hasn't been long enough (and won't be for some time) for anyone to get reliability reports on the drives.

Reliability? Samsung.

Speed? OCZ/Kingston.

Best of both worlds? Might be the Vertex 4 if the controller is really a custom Indilinx controller and not a re-branded Marvell like I've seen some people claim. Hasn't been long enough (and won't be for some time) for anyone to get reliability reports on the drives.

Given OCZ's track record I would avoid them at all cost. Spending a few more bucks on Intel or Samsung is very much worth it IMO. Not sure which is cheaper though. In speed tests the Samsung 830 is on a par with the Intel 520 and I can vouch for the Intel 510 which is no longer on sale as being excellent too.

http://www.anandtech...-ssd-830-review

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      458
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!