SSDBoss Review Our evaluation of 520 vs 320

read performance

How quickly data is read from the drive

4K Random Read, 4K Random Read Access Time and 512K Sequential Read

write performance

How quickly data is written to the drive

4K Random Write, 4K Random Write Access Time and 512K Sequential Write

real world benchmarks

How well the drive performs common tasks

Windows 7 Boot-up Time, Photoshop Lens Filter and AS SSD ISO Copy

Benchmarks

How well the drive performs on common benchmarks

Passmark Disk Rating, PCMark Vantage, AS SSD Score and 1 more

No winner declared

Too close to call

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel 520

Reasons to consider the
Intel 520

Report a correction
Much faster 512K sequential read 519.35 MB/s vs 220.68 MB/s More than 2.2x faster 512K sequential read
Much faster 512K sequential write 486.3 MB/s vs 195.32 MB/s Around 2.5x faster 512K sequential write
Higher capacity 240 GB vs 80 GB 3x higher capacity
Faster 4k random write 81.39 MB/s vs 62.7 MB/s Around 30% faster 4k random write
Much higher passmark rating 3,909 pts vs 1,392 pts More than 2.8x higher passmark rating
Significantly faster tom's storage bench application 629 pts vs 310.12 pts More than 2x faster tom's storage bench application
Significantly higher AS SSD score 742 pts vs 395 pts Around 90% higher AS SSD score
Much more capacity per dollar 2 GB/$ vs 0.7 GB/$ More than 2.8x more capacity per dollar
Faster windows 7 boot-up time 11.3 s vs 12.1 s More than 5% faster windows 7 boot-up time
Higher PCMark vantage score 25,952 pts vs 21,770 pts Around 20% higher PCMark vantage score
Lower 4k random write access time 3.08 ms vs 3.99 ms Around 25% lower 4k random write access time
Faster AS SSD ISO copy 262.98 MB/s vs 217.55 MB/s More than 20% faster AS SSD ISO copy
Front view of Intel 320

Reasons to consider the
Intel 320

Report a correction
Faster 4k random read 133.91 MB/s vs 88.59 MB/s More than 50% faster 4k random read
Significantly lower avg. power consumption 1.55 Watts vs 2.66 Watts More than 40% lower avg. power consumption
Lower 4k random read access time 1.87 ms vs 2.82 ms Around 35% lower 4k random read access time
Thinner thickness 7 mm vs 10 mm More than 25% thinner thickness

Benchmarks Real world tests of Intel 520 vs 320

4K Random Read

Intel 520
88.59 MB/s
Intel 320
133.91 MB/s
520 320 @ ssdreview.com
Intel says it's put a lot of work into tuning the SandForce SF-2281 controller to improve performance and reliability.
Intel 520 | by Tech Radar (Feb, 2012)

4K Random Write

Intel 520
81.39 MB/s
Intel 320
62.7 MB/s
520 320 @ ssdreview.com
What Intel hasn't done, however, is deliver a drive that immediately takes down the opposition in terms of raw performance.
Intel 520 | by Tech Radar (Feb, 2012)

Windows 7 Boot-up Time

Intel 520
11.3 s
Intel 320
12.1 s
520 320 @ ssdreview.com
Thanks to the use of aggressive compression technology, impressive headline data transfer rates can sometimes translate into slightly pedestrian real-world performance.
Intel 520 | by Tech Radar (Feb, 2012)

Avg. Power Consumption

Intel 520
2.66 Watts
Intel 320
1.55 Watts
520 320 @ ssdreview.com
What you don't get with a 2TB magnetic lump, of course, is SSD performance, physical robustness or low power consumption.
Intel 520 | by Tech Radar (Jun, 2012)

4K Random Read Access Time

Intel 520
3.08 ms
Intel 320
3.99 ms
520 320 @ ssdreview.com
So Intel isn't making any showbiz claims for basic performance.
Intel 520 | by Tech Radar (Feb, 2012)

4K Random Write Access Time

Intel 520
2.82 ms
Intel 320
1.87 ms
520 320 @ ssdreview.com
The reasons vary due to the drive's specifics, but broadly speaking it's a case of maximising the bandwidth of the SSD controllers' memory channels.
Intel 520 | by Tech Radar (Jun, 2012)

Reviews Word on the street

Intel 520  vs 320 

8.0
7.0
The 240GB Intel SSD 520 Series is a terrific-performing solid-state drive at a slightly less-than-terrific price.
Intel 520

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus