Vertex 3 or Revodrive X2 240GB

[ipaine]

So just like the title I'm wondering what peoples thoughts are with regards to what I should get the Vertex 3 240GB or the Revodrive X2 240GB. As it is there is about a $50 price premium for the revo.

Now I do have a older Kingston V+ 128GB, so I know it will not be a change like it was going from the hdd to the ssd but it is still something I am considering.

One other question I have is if anyone knows when we are going to see the Corsair Force GT series or the Patriot Wildfire drives? I know it would be nice to have some other selections to choose from. I do know that there is the Intel 510 and the Crucial m4 but they just don't seem to compare with what the Vertex can do, at least from the reviews I have seen.

So any thoughts people? Vertex 3 or Revo x2?

[lowfat]

Honestly I would still go w/ the Crucial C300. Or wait for the M4. The Vertex 3 doesn't have all that impressive 4k read speeds at queue depth one from what I've seen so far. The C300 is about 60% faster at 4k QD1, which is generally perceived as the most important SSD statistic.

[AkG]

Originally Posted by lowfat

Honestly I would still go w/ the Crucial C300. Or wait for the M4. The Vertex 3 doesn't have all that impressive 4k read speeds at queue depth one from what I've seen so far. The C300 is about 60% faster at 4k QD1, which is generally perceived as the most important SSD statistic.

It all depends on the test system used. I know on my new system I get 95+ writes and 34+ reads at QD1...and the 32qd is simply INSANE. So its not like its "slow" or anything! :)~

TBH, if it was C300 vs Vertex 2...I'd pick the C300. BUT the Vertex 3 simply powers past the C300 in most instances...except price. As the C300 and M4s are cheaper ;)

To the OP. Im not a fond lover of the Revo series. They are good...but IDK, I just think that they are going to be EOL'ed very shortly for a V3 iteration. Would suck to pay full price now if it gets discounted in a couple months. ;)

[ipaine]

Originally Posted by lowfat

Honestly I would still go w/ the Crucial C300. Or wait for the M4. The Vertex 3 doesn't have all that impressive 4k read speeds at queue depth one from what I've seen so far. The C300 is about 60% faster at 4k QD1, which is generally perceived as the most important SSD statistic.

I don't know, I was looking at the review of the m4 from Anandtech and the Vertex 3 240GB is pretty much tops in all except for a few select tests. I really looked at the more real world benches, the heavy and light work load tests, and the Vertex 3 240 pretty much owns them.

Originally Posted by AkG

To the OP. Im not a fond lover of the Revo series. They are good...but IDK, I just think that they are going to be EOL'ed very shortly for a V3 iteration. Would suck to pay full price now if it gets discounted in a couple months. ;)

That is one of the worries I have about the Revo X2, but I haven't heard anything recently about when the next version is out.

Any info on releases for the new patriot wildfire or corsair force gt? I keep hearing that they should be almost any time but nothing concrete.

[lowfat]

Originally Posted by ipaine

I don't know, I was looking at the review of the m4 from Anandtech and the Vertex 3 240GB is pretty much tops in all except for a few select tests. I really looked at the more real world benches, the heavy and light work load tests, and the Vertex 3 240 pretty much owns them.

.

Because Anand doesn't test at QD1. They test at queue depth of 3 which is utterly lame. It skews the results. If most reads have a queue depth of 1 or slight above, why not test with it. The reason IMO is to shine a better light on the Vertex 3.

[ipaine]

Originally Posted by lowfat

Because Anand doesn't test at QD1. They test at queue depth of 3 which is utterly lame. It skews the results. If most reads have a queue depth of 1 or slight above, why not test with it. The reason IMO is to shine a better light on the Vertex 3.

But that is why I specifically mentioned their real world heavy and light work load tests. Since those are not synthetic benches I would say they mean a lot more than just a qd-1 read test. But that said do you know of any reviews that show qd-1 tests so I can see what you mean, cause I haven't found any, most just show qd32.

[lowfat]

Take a look at this thread. Hardware.fr does a fantastic job. There are a few nicer (and english) graphs on the first page.

SSD roundup: Vertex 3 vs M4 vs C300 vs 510 vs 320 vs x25-M vs F120 vs Falcon II - XtremeSystems Forums

[YukonTrooper]

Great link, lowfat. It's amazing how many of the top "review" sites miss the important tests with SSD's and consequently the Sandforce drives look utterly amazing, meanwhile the C300's are still faster where it matters for 90% of users, yet those tests are omitted.

The C300 is my suggestion to the OP. You get top of the pack read performance for last gen price. I'd also consider the new Crucial drives, but only if they can be found around the same price.

[ipaine]

Thanks for the link lowfat.

Well, here is a question. Why is it only really that one review that shows virtually no difference between drives in real world tests? I mean it seems to contradict basically all of the other reviews I have seen with regards to SSDs.

And while I get that the 4k read QD1 results are interesting and yes it seems that most people agree that the OS uses 4k reads the most, but that alone does not make the drive. Should you not be factoring in all of the results from all of the tests? Cause if I take just those results then I would come out with the conclusion that the Intel 320 300GB drive is better than the 510 250GB, which is certainly not the case, as they even state in that very review.

So what I'm trying to get at is that while the 4k tests are important and yes QD1 is also important, it is not the complete picture. Also why so much love for the C300 now? When it came out I don't remember any real glowing reviews, nothing said it was really bad but no one said it was the greatest either.

Just my 2 cents.

[lowfat]

Originally Posted by ipaine

Thanks for the link lowfat.

Well, here is a question. Why is it only really that one review that shows virtually no difference between drives in real world tests? I mean it seems to contradict basically all of the other reviews I have seen with regards to SSDs.

And while I get that the 4k read QD1 results are interesting and yes it seems that most people agree that the OS uses 4k reads the most, but that alone does not make the drive. Should you not be factoring in all of the results from all of the tests? Cause if I take just those results then I would come out with the conclusion that the Intel 320 300GB drive is better than the 510 250GB, which is certainly not the case, as they even state in that very review.

So what I'm trying to get at is that while the 4k tests are important and yes QD1 is also important, it is not the complete picture. Also why so much love for the C300 now? When it came out I don't remember any real glowing reviews, nothing said it was really bad but no one said it was the greatest either.

Just my 2 cents.

Can you direct me to some real world tests? That is another thing that bothers me w/ most SSD reviews. They all seem to rely on synthetic benchmarks.

And honestly I do think the 320 is a better drive than the 510. Not exactly what is going on w/ the 510. but it uses the same controller as the Crucial M4, which is fantastic. Yet, Intel's 510 does rather pathetic in a lot of the tests I've seen so far.