GUI|LoBo
6th December 2011, 01:48
Hey all,
Finally taking the leap into SSD territory. Just gonna pick up an 80GB for the OS (Windows 7 Ultimate) and other various applications (iTunes, Cubase, etc.). I may put a few non-steam games on it as well (Starcraft 2, Battlefield 3, and probably TOR). However, the drive is primarily for the OS. All of my Steam games (which is most of them) will be on a seperate HDD (600GB WD Velociraptor) and I will have yet another HDD (1TB WD Caviar Black) for storage.
I've essentially narrowed it down to 2 choices, either the Intel X25-M or the Intel 320. The Intel 320 is the newer generation, has faster sequential read/write, and is about $10 cheaper (on sale until Friday). However, I've read a lot of people recommending the X-25-M over the 320 since the X25-M has an established track record of reliability. Also, apparently the latency of the X-25 is better.
To me the answer seems obvious. Go with the Intel 320. It's newer, faster where it counts, and is currently the cheaper option. However, since so many SSD enthusiasts are recommending the older X25-M model over the 320 I feel there must be something I'm missing. As I said I'm new to the whole SSD craze so I'm not very well versed in the technology yet. Can anyone with more SSD experience than I offer some advice?
Thanks
Finally taking the leap into SSD territory. Just gonna pick up an 80GB for the OS (Windows 7 Ultimate) and other various applications (iTunes, Cubase, etc.). I may put a few non-steam games on it as well (Starcraft 2, Battlefield 3, and probably TOR). However, the drive is primarily for the OS. All of my Steam games (which is most of them) will be on a seperate HDD (600GB WD Velociraptor) and I will have yet another HDD (1TB WD Caviar Black) for storage.
I've essentially narrowed it down to 2 choices, either the Intel X25-M or the Intel 320. The Intel 320 is the newer generation, has faster sequential read/write, and is about $10 cheaper (on sale until Friday). However, I've read a lot of people recommending the X-25-M over the 320 since the X25-M has an established track record of reliability. Also, apparently the latency of the X-25 is better.
To me the answer seems obvious. Go with the Intel 320. It's newer, faster where it counts, and is currently the cheaper option. However, since so many SSD enthusiasts are recommending the older X25-M model over the 320 I feel there must be something I'm missing. As I said I'm new to the whole SSD craze so I'm not very well versed in the technology yet. Can anyone with more SSD experience than I offer some advice?
Thanks