[geeks] SSD Choice between Intel and Crucial

[Nick B]

Either way the 240g version is substantially less than twice the cost.  If
you must stick to the 120g version it looks like the M500 drops pretty far
back, I'd guess 120g just isn't enough chips for it to preform.
Nick

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Mark Benson <md.benson at gmail.com> wrote:

> My games PC has been running an Intel 320 Series SSD for about 3 years
> issue free. The Mac Pro I used to use as a daily driver also had the same
> one and worked great (that one is now in a Linux server).
>
> I have a work Thinkpad with a Crucial SSD in but it's had issues. The first
> time it was probably Lenovo's fault, the second time it was likely the
> laptop's previous owner or Lenovo. The SSD seems to still work okay as far
> as I can see.
>
> My experience tells me go with Intel, but YMMV.
>
> --
> Mark Benson
>
> http://markbenson.org/blog
> http://twitter.com/mdbenson
> http://twitter.com/dectecinfo
>
> On 19 Oct 2014 20:57, "hike" <mh1272 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have experience or comments on which SSD would be better.  We
> > want to use to test Windows 10 Preview and, afterwards, to install
> Ubuntu.
> > It could also be used as a Mac OS X sometime in it's life.
> >
> > (1)  Intel 520 Series SSD, 120GB, SATA 6Gb/s, 2.5", 9.5mm height,
> > SSDSC at CW120A310
> >
> > and/or
> >
> > (2) Crucial M500 SSD, 120GB, SATA, 7mm (with 9.5mm adapter),
> CT120M500SSD1
> >
> > Both sells for $65 on Amazon (where we have free shipping, etc.)
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> > _______________________________________________
> > GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks
> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks