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
Significantly 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 512K sequential read 519.35 MB/s vs 220.68 MB/s More than 2.2x faster 512K sequential read
Significantly 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
Faster 4k random write 81.39 MB/s vs 62.7 MB/s Around 30% faster 4k random write
Higher PCMark vantage score 25,952 pts vs 21,770 pts Around 20% higher PCMark vantage score
Faster windows 7 boot-up time 11.3 s vs 12.1 s More than 5% faster windows 7 boot-up time
Higher AS SSD score 742 pts vs 395 pts Around 90% higher AS SSD score
Significantly more capacity per dollar 2 GB/$ vs 0.57 GB/$ More than 3.5x more capacity per dollar
Lower 4k random write access time 3.08 ms vs 3.99 ms Around 25% lower 4k random write access time
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
Much lower avg. power consumption 1.55 Watts vs 2.66 Watts More than 40% lower avg. power consumption
Larger cache 64 MB vs 0 MB Compared to all SSDs, 64 MB cache is just OK
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

4K Random Write

Intel 520
81.39 MB/s
Intel 320
62.7 MB/s

Windows 7 Boot-up Time

Intel 520
11.3 s
Intel 320
12.1 s

Avg. Power Consumption

Intel 520
2.66 Watts
Intel 320
1.55 Watts

4K Random Read Access Time

Intel 520
3.08 ms
Intel 320
3.99 ms

4K Random Write Access Time

Intel 520
2.82 ms
Intel 320
1.87 ms

Reviews Word on the street

Intel 520  vs 320 

8.0
7.0
But Intel’s strides with the 520 Series are admirable and the results excellent, so if (or when) price and performance balance out a little better in the marketplace this drive will be even more a winner than it already unquestionably is.
Intel 520

Comments

comments powered by Disqus