Intel SSD 530 (240GB) Review
by Kristian Vättö on November 15, 2013 1:45 PM EST- Posted in
- Storage
- SSDs
- Intel
- Intel SSD 530
Final Words
Ultimately there is one crucial thing that the SSD 530 provides over the SSD 520: price. The SSD 520 has been rather expensive and it hasn't really been able to compete, in price or performance, with the newer SSDs with smaller lithography NAND. As a result, I haven't been able to recommend the SSD 520 for ages as it simply hasn't provided any value for the extra cost. With the SSD 530 Intel's pricing is more reasonable and closer to other high-end SSDs. In fact, Intel's pricing is very competitive if you compare the SSD 530 to OCZ Vector 150 or SanDisk Extreme II, although those two also outperform the SSD 530 by a fairly big margin.
| NewEgg Price Comparison (11/12/2013) | ||||
| 120/128GB | 180GB | 240/256GB | 480/512GB | |
| Intel SSD 530 | $120 | $170 | $200 | N/A ($419) |
| Intel SSD 520 | N/A | $195 | $250 | N/A |
| Intel SSD 335 | N/A | $155 | $180 | N/A |
| OCZ Vector 150 | $135 | N/A | $240 | $490 |
| OCZ Vertex 450 | $115 | N/A | $220 | $460 |
| Samsung SSD 840 EVO | $100 | N/A | $175 | $340 |
| Samsung SSD 840 Pro | $150 | N/A | $250 | $570 |
| Crucial M500 | $120 | N/A | $150 | $310 |
| SanDisk Extreme II | $150 | N/A | $230 | $460 |
| Seagate SSD 600 | $110 | N/A | $150 | $380 |
We aren't able to find the 480GB model in stock anywhere right now (at least, not at any of the major online resellers), but it's interesting to note that Intel's ARK page shows a bulk price of just $419; by comparison, the 240GB has a bulk price of $219, so if Intel can truly sell the 480GB for close to $400 it's at lest worth a look. Still, the competition is fierce, with the M500 and 840 EVO getting closer to $300 than $400 for 480-512GB capacities.
Other than price, power consumption is the only other major improvement in the SSD 530. Performance is mostly similar to the SSD 520, although I don't think this surprises anyone. The SF-2281 is well over two years old now, so there are no tricks left to increase performance.
I'm still of the opinion that Intel should offer a consumer orientated drive with its own SATA 6Gbps controller (i.e. the one used in the DC S3500/S3700). However, I do understand that it may not be cost effective, especially as the controller was designed for enterprise to begin with, making it not suitable for the consumer market with slimmer profits. It will be interesting to see what Intel's approach will be with SATA Express as it gives Intel a new chance to design something in-house. With SATA 6Gbps Intel was very late to the game, which forced them to use third party controllers (first Marvell and then SandForce). With SATA 3Gbps, on the other hand, Intel was one of the first players to come up with a good controller and firmware (the X25-M series), so I certainly hope that we will see something similar this time around.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
60 Comments
View All Comments
spacecadet34 - Friday, November 15, 2013 - link
Given that this very drive is today's Newegg Canada's ShellShocker deal, I'd say this review is quite timely!ExodusC - Friday, November 15, 2013 - link
I picked up a 180GB Intel 530 recently after doing a lot of searching for a cheap SSD for my OS and some programs. It replaced my old first generation 60GB OCZ Vertex. I was hesitant about using a SandForce controller drive, since many people apparently still have issues with certain drives, but I decided to jump on the 530.I'm pleased with the performance and price, and I was blown away by Intel's software, allowing you to flash the drive to the latest firmware while it's running with your OS on it. That's a huge leap above the pains of trying to get my old OCZ drive to flash to the latest firmware (which is sometimes a destructive flash).
Samus - Friday, November 15, 2013 - link
Amazingly I haven't ever had an issue with an Intel Sandforce drive. I had some quirkiness (not detecting upon reboot/resume from hibernation) with a 330 at launch but they fixed it almost immediately with a firmware.I can't say the same for OCZ. I've owned 3 of their drives and 2 failed, including the RMA's, in under 6 months. One failed in 3 days. Just wouldn't detect in BIOS, even on different machines or with a USB SATA cable. Ironically, the Vertex 2 240GB I have has been solid for over 2 years in my media center running 24/7 so there is no rhyme or reason to it.
If only Intel's networking division was as on-the-ball with software updates as their storage division. My Intel 7260 AC wifi card occasionally doesn't detect any networks and it is a very common problem. At least they sorted the Bluetooth issues.
ExodusC - Friday, November 15, 2013 - link
The 60GB OCZ Vertex I replaced actually was not my first. I RMA'd my original drive after I think I screwed up a firmware flash (it seemed to be my fault and not the drive's). Another reason I'm happy with my Intel drive, the firmware updating is so incredibly painless and low risk.If you're familiar with Anand's SSD anthology and the history behind the Vertex, you might remember that the first generation OCZ Vertex with production firmware was the first consumer SSD that didn't suffer from awful stuttering issues (due in large part to Anand's communication with OCZ on the issue). Other companies followed suit and prioritized consistent performance over maximum throughput. At the time, the Vertex was a no-brainer (this was in the pre-Intel X25-M days).
You're right that OCZ seems to have some QC issues nowadays. On the plus side, I can definitely say that OCZ's customer support is top notch. They were extremely fast in qualifying me to RMA my drive after the failed firmware flash.
'nar - Monday, November 18, 2013 - link
You are complaining with no details to back it up. You said your Vertex 2 works fine, but you failed to mention the model OCZ drives that failed.I have used Vertex (Limited, 2, 3) and now Vector drives and have not had a bad experience yet. But I looked into the hardware and never considered the Solid or Agility series in the first place. I have replaced another guy's SSD three times. I finally told him to give up on RMA's and buy a quality drive. Solid and Agility are not quality, they are cheap. That's why OCZ finally dropped them.
I've installed dozen of SSD's, mostly Intel/Sandforce models, and have never had an unexplained failure. I did have one, but that system killed a hard drive a month even before I installed the SSD, so it is just a quirk of that system.
I have OCZ in all of my own systems(9) because they eek out a bit more performance, but the Intel Toolbox is a winner for me to use for others where I cannot be there for support.
jonjonjonj - Thursday, November 21, 2013 - link
looks like you made a ocz fanboy mad. ocz deserves the terrible reputation they have and after all the bad drives they sold i wouldn't touch one.Bullwinkle J Moose - Saturday, November 23, 2013 - link
You did not screw up the firmware flash!!!The number one failure mechanism for OCZ is a firmware update as could easily have been verified by the complaints at OCZ's forum and Newegg customer reviews
I have torture tested OCZ SSD's (Vertex 1 and 2) by killing power, not aligning partitions, defragging and several other methods not recommended by OCZ
Nothing would damage the drives until the firmware was updated as per OCZ instructions as can be seen by the thousands of customer complaints
Anyone commenting otherwise is a LIAR and did not research this topic thoroughly or honestly!
Cellar Door - Friday, November 15, 2013 - link
My Intel failed after just a year and a half - so don't think they are immune to it.Sivar - Saturday, November 16, 2013 - link
This is true. Nothing is immune to manufacturing defects.I had an opportunity for a few years to see actual return rates for many hard drive and SSD manufacturers. Intel SSDs consistently had the lowest failure rates in the industry, at least through the 520. I haven't the most current data, but I would be surprised if the numbers suddenly changed since then.
Sivar - Saturday, November 16, 2013 - link
Note that the OCZ Vertex 3 and later have been pretty solid. The previous generations were so alarmingly bad that I am a little surprised they are still in business.