intel 530 series vs crucial mx100

[themaniac]

intel 530 series vs crucial mx100 whats better and faster?

[phillrulz]

i got a mx100 512gb like a month ago very impressed. 

[Lotus]

While the read times look comparable, the Intel 530 seems to have much better write speeds.

 

That being said, I don't think it matters enough to spend more money for less capacity (intel is $130 for 240gb, crucial is $113 for 256gb)

 

Plus Intel is a rebrander while crucial is an OEM. Honestly I think almost all of these debates could come down to Sandisk vs Crucial.

[themaniac]

While the read times look comparable, the Intel 530 seems to have much better write speeds.

 

That being said, I don't think it matters enough to spend more money for less capacity (intel is $130 for 240gb, crucial is $113 for 256gb)

 

Plus Intel is a rebrander while crucial is an OEM. Honestly I think almost all of these debates could come down to Sandisk vs Crucial.

i was looking at the 120 and 128 gb models and the intel is one is cheaper atm and i thought intel made there own ssd's

[Joshua Ondangan]

between on those 2.

 

I'd actually buy both. pretty much I like the intel one but crucial one for ssd ain't no slouch either. lol for now I guess grab whichever you wallet wants to date?

[Lotus]

i was looking at the 120 and 128 gb models and the intel is one is cheaper atm and i thought intel made there own ssd's

I'm pretty sure they only design the controller and not the actual flash memory.

[themaniac]

I'm pretty sure they only design the controller and not the actual flash memory.

ok but with there money i would think they would make there own ssd's

[Lotus]

Why bother? It's a whole new line of tech that they just don't need to do. Same reason why crucial sticks to what it does (RAM and SSDs) and doesn't make HDDs. That's WD and Seagate territory.

[Dimwitted]

It's about pricing. Intel doesn't do cheap well. They can do a controller and use Hynix NAND for a lot less than using Intel flash. Especially for a value line like the 530. That said, the Intel controller isn't just chopped liver. For the most part the controller is the big differentiator between a lot of these ssd's. Crucial has a killer controller in the Marvell chip and Intel's is just as good. If you can get both at the same price, toss a coin. Pick the cheaper one otherwise.

[hojnikb]

While the read times look comparable, the Intel 530 seems to have much better write speeds.

 

That being said, I don't think it matters enough to spend more money for less capacity (intel is $130 for 240gb, crucial is $113 for 256gb)

 

Plus Intel is a rebrander while crucial is an OEM. Honestly I think almost all of these debates could come down to Sandisk vs Crucial.

 

It doesnt have. Intel as all other sandforce OEMs advertise compressible performance. Once you start writing incompressible data, speeds drop heavily. Usually to mx100 levels or even lower, since sandforce drops writes speeds over time due to durawrite.

 

[hojnikb]

I'm pretty sure they only design the controller and not the actual flash memory.

They don't. Intel 33x and 520/530 series use 2nd gen sandforce controller (like 50 other oems).

Only thing intel in the 530 is their flash.

[wpirobotbuilder]

Intel has better performance consistency (in general) than Crucial, and they have end-to-end data protection. Those are good things for pro users, but not entirely necessary for most people.

 

I recommend the MX100 -- I have one and it's treated me well. As far as competitive pricing goes, they're one of the best out there, and it's close enough to the 530 in performance.

[hojnikb]

Intel has better performance consistency (in general) than Crucial, and they have end-to-end data protection. Those are good things for pro users, but not entirely necessary for most people.

 

I recommend the MX100 -- I have one and it's treated me well. As far as competitive pricing goes, they're one of the best out there, and it's close enough to the 530 in performance.

530 doesnt have that.

[wpirobotbuilder]

530 doesnt have that.

It does.

[BaSkA]

I don't think you'll see any differences in daily life usage. I'd go with the cheapest and $210 for 512GB of SSD is just insane for me.

 

Good luck.

[hojnikb]

It does.

Mea culpa, was thinking about power loss protection all that time. Not the same thing :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Sharif]

Intel has better performance consistency (in general) than Crucial, and they have end-to-end data protection. Those are good things for pro users, but not entirely necessary for most people.

 

I recommend the MX100 -- I have one and it's treated me well. As far as competitive pricing goes, they're one of the best out there, and it's close enough to the 530 in performance.

Did you have the 128 gig one? 

[wpirobotbuilder]

Did you have the 128 gig one? 

The 256GB one.

[Sharif]

The 256GB one.

Okay thanks i was curious about the 128 gig one but got it solved now thanks to the forum =)