The Intel SSD 330 Review (60GB, 120GB, 180GB)
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 1, 2012 12:01 AM ESTFinal Words
Of the available SandForce drives, I've felt most comfortable recommending Intel's own. The pass through Intel's validation labs provides that extra peace of mind that hopefully translates into a better overall experience. In the past Intel has been a reliable option in the market but not necessarily the most affordable. The 330 attempts to correct the latter. While other drives are cheaper, the 330 does give you a unique combination of an Intel validated drive at a competitive price point.
The performance delta between the 330 and the 520 is narrow enough that I don't see a reason to recommend the 520 unless you need a higher capacity drive. The loss of endurance is likely something no typical end user would ever notice. Perhaps the lower p/e cycle is enough to keep the 330 out of write heavy enterprise deployments, but otherwise it's a non-issue.
The biggest problem with Intel's SSD 330 really stems from the limitations of its SandForce controller. Performance with incompressible (or software encrypted) data is hardly competitive. As an unencrypted OS/application drive the 330 is great, but if you're planning on using software encryption or will be primarily storing photos, videos and music you'll want to opt for a drive based on a different controller technology.
In the end it's good to see Intel playing aggressively on price. The 330 is likely one of the best SandForce drives on the market, and not having to pay a premium for it is pretty awesome.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
64 Comments
View All Comments
STL - Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - link
After sending a link to this article to my friend and quoting a sentence (we both follow Intel SSDs, and I bought a 710 300GB based on AnandTech's excellent review), I noticed that AnandTech has begun using the JavaScript thing that infects copied text with "read more at". (As explained at http://daringfireball.net/2010/05/tynt_copy_paste_... , although the "service" provider may be different here.)I am *extremely* disappointed to see AnandTech tarnishing its image with this nonsense.
Bull Dog - Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - link
yea, this is a pretty annoying "feature"Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - link
Hmm this isn't intentional, let me see what's going on.Take care,
Anand
iEagle - Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - link
Here's the culprit:<script src='http://i.po.st/share/script/post-widget.js#publish... type='text/javascript'></script>
i.po.st just got 127.0.0.1'd
Zoomer - Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - link
Good thing it doesn't work on my browser. :)Flying Goat - Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - link
While it uses compiled Javascript, and I'm too lazy to reformat it, http://i.po.st/static/script/post-copypaste.js is presumably the issue (And blocking that domain gets rid of the problem).This is included directly in the source of the article page ("script src='http://i.po.st/share/script/post-widget.js#publish... type='text/javascript'").
Anand Lal Shimpi - Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - link
Fixed, our content sharing partner (po.st) enabled this by default in their latest update. We've stripped it out.Take care,
Anand
Zarf42 - Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - link
And this is why I continue reading Anandtech. You guys are really in tune with your audience and you don't like to annoy us. Thanks for staying awesome!ImSpartacus - Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - link
I know. I'm such a fanboy. I don't think I'll ever find a site as awesome as Anandtech.STL - Wednesday, August 1, 2012 - link
Wow, thanks!