Intel released this 520 series in late 2011 with the sandforce controller and are killing it. It even comes with a five year warranty! That is unheard of in the SSD industry, especially with the Sandforce controllers which are known for reliability issues. While OCZ encountered problems after rushing to market, the Intel 520s are stable and reliable, if not a year late to the party. Intel tests thoroughly to maintain a high degree of quality. They release products only after they pass rigorous standards. Intel gets the best binned NAND flash memory which will inherently last longer than the lower binned chips other manufacturers receive; it's nice to own the chip factory! Because Intel manufactures the NAND flash, they can conceivably tease more performance and reliability out of them when they write the firmware (anandtech). This gives Intel a decisive advantage. If your on the fence, get this drive, especially now that the price is half of what it was when it released. I picked this up for $175, that's less that $1/GB. That's a mile mark for SSDs!

I went with Intel again because I like the support and reputation. I also like the ease of installation; Clone your drive with the supplied software and replace your old one. Intel drives just work. All the tools and firmware are easily found on Intel's download page. Plus the firmware updates don't erase your data. However, you should back up anyway.

WHAT TO EXPECT: If you are upgrading from a spinning HDD, this will blow your mind. There is no better upgrade that speeds your computer up. Not a CPU upgrade, not a video card, or anything. Everything loads fast, like under a couple of seconds to nearly instantly. The operating system is snappy and smooth. No more being uncertain if it's loading after clicking on a shortcut, it just opens. SSD is pricey, but well worth it IMO. Having said that, if you are contemplating an upgrade from another SSD I have to say the difference is not dramatic. I can notice a difference in this drive compared to my X25-M, but it's not dramatic. It's perhaps not worth the pricy upgrade. I wanted the 180GB so that justifies it for me. Your experience may differ.

WHAT TO WATCH OUT FOR: Make sure to check that your cloned OS is aligned properly or you will not see all the performance benefits of your new drive. When I cloned my drive it did not align the partition properly. I only recently realized this after running AS SSD benchmark. There is a partition alignment display that indicated I had a bad alignment. I went to Intel's download center and found an Acronis Alignment Tool that is for the Intel 500 series. It says that it is only for XP users but I have windows 7 and it worked fine for me. I backed up and ran the tool. It realigned my partition and the improvement is noticeable! My benchmark numbers have been updated below accordingly. I can't believe I missed this

rookie mistake.

NUMBERS: The 180GB version doesn't sacrifice performance. The 120GB and 60GB versions have slower IOPS than the 180GB and 240GB. 75% of what we can perceive as a performance boost comes from Reads. The most important of those are the small file random reads and access time. Pay close attention to the IOPS in the 4K file sizes below, as most system files are in that size range. Access time is also important because it represents the time it takes after reading one file to start to read the next. The lower the access time the better. Below is a comparison to my other Intel SSDs:

Intel X25-M 80GB G2 (SATA 2): - 268MB/s Read, 87MB/s Write maximum throughput, 32,969 IOPS Read 4K QD32, 0.144ms access time, and Windows Experience Index gives it a 7.2.

Intel 510 Elm Crest 120GB (SATA 3): - 477MB/s Read, 223MB/s Write maximum throughput, 21,473 IOPS Read 4K QD32, 0.148ms access time, and Windows Experience Index gives it a 7.8.

This Drive, Intel 520 180GB (SATA 3): - 542MB/s Read, 500MB/s Write maximum throughput, 75,073 IOPS Read 4K QD32, 0.174ms access time, and Windows Experience Index gives it a 7.9.

Even though the maximum throughput shows dramatic performance increases, it doesn't translate much to your perceivable experience; the snappiness of the operating system. You'll notice the 4K IOPS increased from 33,000 to 75,000 (CrystalDiskMark), while the access time actually went up from 0.144ms to 0.174ms (AS SSD). While the net result is still a faster drive, as you would expect, the increasing access time is undermining the performance gains. This represents a fundamental limit in SSD NAND flash technology. It's also a trend that's expected to continue as NAND flash's manufacturing process gets smaller and SSDs increase in size.

IMPORTANT HISTORY: I upgraded from an X25-M 80Gb G2 to an Intel 510 120Gb, and now again to an Intel 520 180Gb. The X25-M was the best drive available when it came out. The 510 was a very good drive, but the Sandforce powered OCZ drives were the king of speed. However, OCZ was and is still having trouble with firmware related issues. The problem is that a customer will report a problem and return the drive, but it will test perfectly in OCZs computers. OCZ has released firmware to fix most issues people have with their drives. They are a reasonable buy, but they are still trying to track down gremlins in the works. I have heard of similar problems from other manufacturers too. If you decide to try these drives, back up your system, update drive firmware, and retain all your purchase information incase you need to return it. Of these issues Intel seems to have the fewest, which is why I keep going with them.

Sandforce tried to track down the problem and had discussions with Intel about it. So it may be an issue with the controller itself. I take it that they were successful in tracking down the problem and ironing it out in the controller. This Intel 520 with the Sandforce controllers are living up to Intel's reputation. Meanwhile OCZ is still having intermittent problems and trying to hide it. Intel must not be sharing what they learned from those discussions with Sandforce. Also, Sandforce must not be allowed to reveal what Intel discovered, that is if Intel even told them at all (anandtech).

ADDITIONAL INFO: Single Level Cell (SLC) SSDs were the first to appear and were very expensive with only small drives. To reduce the cost and increase size the industry went to Multi Level Cells (MLC) while also reducing NAND flash manufacturing process to the current 20nm. However, significantly slower access times are a direct result. There are plans for Triple Level Cell (TLC) and even smaller manufacturing processes to allow even bigger drives to be made for a reasonable price. However, the performance will take another hit. I should point out that the X25-M, 510, and this drive are each MLC. The only difference between them are the NAND manufacturing process and the firmware/controllers. So even advancements within MLC are resulting in slower access times. This trend is alarming as it signals an end to the SSD performance bubble. Everything that goes up, must come down. All good things must come to an end. If it's too good to be true, it probably isn't. And so on. Because of this, researchers predict that in 2024 as NAND reaches 6.5nm manufacturing process and SSDs reach 4GB-MLC and 16GB-TLC they will hit the end of their performance gains (tomshardware). SLC and MLC solutions will likely still be faster than HDD technology can ever reach, especially if SLC can come down in price/GB. Either way SSDs will hold a niche as the best performing choice for operating system drives. Since you don't need a huge OS drive, and data can be put on a large conventional HDD, SSD has solidified it's place in the enthusiast computer market.

There are always improvements to be made and manufacturers will come up with stop-gap solutions to these problems. There are some TLC SSDs appearing on the market that are not sacrificing performance thanks to innovative memory caching methods. The controller sets aside a portion of the NAND to use as a caching buffer, writing to this portion as SLC to speed up the writing process. Samsung calls this a "Turbo Write Buffer". However, this method will only be effective as long as the write size is smaller than the cache buffer. If it exceeds the cache buffer the disk starts writing directly to the TLC NAND sacrificing performance. As long as writes don't exceed the Buffer the disk performs like SLC and in this way manufacturers are getting around the limitations of TLC. Remember that although the end is in sight, SSD's will likely be faster than HDD for the foreseeable future.

4 people found this helpful

Top critical review

1.0 out of 5 starsThe problem is the installation

Reviewed in the United States on January 11, 2013

I bought this for the express purpose of creating a boot disk for my virgin Dell XPS 8500 with Windows 8 (dont get me started on Windows 8 as since XP there has not been a single new version of windows that I consider evolutionary or improvement). No cigar. The Intel provided software and touted by, presumebly, people on Intel payroll does not work.

3 people found this helpful

67 total ratings, 62 with reviews

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

From the United States

Reviewed in the United States on July 10, 2013

Intel released this 520 series in late 2011 with the sandforce controller and are killing it. It even comes with a five year warranty! That is unheard of in the SSD industry, especially with the Sandforce controllers which are known for reliability issues. While OCZ encountered problems after rushing to market, the Intel 520s are stable and reliable, if not a year late to the party. Intel tests thoroughly to maintain a high degree of quality. They release products only after they pass rigorous standards. Intel gets the best binned NAND flash memory which will inherently last longer than the lower binned chips other manufacturers receive; it's nice to own the chip factory! Because Intel manufactures the NAND flash, they can conceivably tease more performance and reliability out of them when they write the firmware (anandtech). This gives Intel a decisive advantage. If your on the fence, get this drive, especially now that the price is half of what it was when it released. I picked this up for $175, that's less that $1/GB. That's a mile mark for SSDs!

I went with Intel again because I like the support and reputation. I also like the ease of installation; Clone your drive with the supplied software and replace your old one. Intel drives just work. All the tools and firmware are easily found on Intel's download page. Plus the firmware updates don't erase your data. However, you should back up anyway.

WHAT TO EXPECT: If you are upgrading from a spinning HDD, this will blow your mind. There is no better upgrade that speeds your computer up. Not a CPU upgrade, not a video card, or anything. Everything loads fast, like under a couple of seconds to nearly instantly. The operating system is snappy and smooth. No more being uncertain if it's loading after clicking on a shortcut, it just opens. SSD is pricey, but well worth it IMO. Having said that, if you are contemplating an upgrade from another SSD I have to say the difference is not dramatic. I can notice a difference in this drive compared to my X25-M, but it's not dramatic. It's perhaps not worth the pricy upgrade. I wanted the 180GB so that justifies it for me. Your experience may differ.

WHAT TO WATCH OUT FOR: Make sure to check that your cloned OS is aligned properly or you will not see all the performance benefits of your new drive. When I cloned my drive it did not align the partition properly. I only recently realized this after running AS SSD benchmark. There is a partition alignment display that indicated I had a bad alignment. I went to Intel's download center and found an Acronis Alignment Tool that is for the Intel 500 series. It says that it is only for XP users but I have windows 7 and it worked fine for me. I backed up and ran the tool. It realigned my partition and the improvement is noticeable! My benchmark numbers have been updated below accordingly. I can't believe I missed this

rookie mistake.

NUMBERS: The 180GB version doesn't sacrifice performance. The 120GB and 60GB versions have slower IOPS than the 180GB and 240GB. 75% of what we can perceive as a performance boost comes from Reads. The most important of those are the small file random reads and access time. Pay close attention to the IOPS in the 4K file sizes below, as most system files are in that size range. Access time is also important because it represents the time it takes after reading one file to start to read the next. The lower the access time the better. Below is a comparison to my other Intel SSDs:

Intel X25-M 80GB G2 (SATA 2): - 268MB/s Read, 87MB/s Write maximum throughput, 32,969 IOPS Read 4K QD32, 0.144ms access time, and Windows Experience Index gives it a 7.2.

Intel 510 Elm Crest 120GB (SATA 3): - 477MB/s Read, 223MB/s Write maximum throughput, 21,473 IOPS Read 4K QD32, 0.148ms access time, and Windows Experience Index gives it a 7.8.

This Drive, Intel 520 180GB (SATA 3): - 542MB/s Read, 500MB/s Write maximum throughput, 75,073 IOPS Read 4K QD32, 0.174ms access time, and Windows Experience Index gives it a 7.9.

Even though the maximum throughput shows dramatic performance increases, it doesn't translate much to your perceivable experience; the snappiness of the operating system. You'll notice the 4K IOPS increased from 33,000 to 75,000 (CrystalDiskMark), while the access time actually went up from 0.144ms to 0.174ms (AS SSD). While the net result is still a faster drive, as you would expect, the increasing access time is undermining the performance gains. This represents a fundamental limit in SSD NAND flash technology. It's also a trend that's expected to continue as NAND flash's manufacturing process gets smaller and SSDs increase in size.

IMPORTANT HISTORY: I upgraded from an X25-M 80Gb G2 to an Intel 510 120Gb, and now again to an Intel 520 180Gb. The X25-M was the best drive available when it came out. The 510 was a very good drive, but the Sandforce powered OCZ drives were the king of speed. However, OCZ was and is still having trouble with firmware related issues. The problem is that a customer will report a problem and return the drive, but it will test perfectly in OCZs computers. OCZ has released firmware to fix most issues people have with their drives. They are a reasonable buy, but they are still trying to track down gremlins in the works. I have heard of similar problems from other manufacturers too. If you decide to try these drives, back up your system, update drive firmware, and retain all your purchase information incase you need to return it. Of these issues Intel seems to have the fewest, which is why I keep going with them.

Sandforce tried to track down the problem and had discussions with Intel about it. So it may be an issue with the controller itself. I take it that they were successful in tracking down the problem and ironing it out in the controller. This Intel 520 with the Sandforce controllers are living up to Intel's reputation. Meanwhile OCZ is still having intermittent problems and trying to hide it. Intel must not be sharing what they learned from those discussions with Sandforce. Also, Sandforce must not be allowed to reveal what Intel discovered, that is if Intel even told them at all (anandtech).

ADDITIONAL INFO: Single Level Cell (SLC) SSDs were the first to appear and were very expensive with only small drives. To reduce the cost and increase size the industry went to Multi Level Cells (MLC) while also reducing NAND flash manufacturing process to the current 20nm. However, significantly slower access times are a direct result. There are plans for Triple Level Cell (TLC) and even smaller manufacturing processes to allow even bigger drives to be made for a reasonable price. However, the performance will take another hit. I should point out that the X25-M, 510, and this drive are each MLC. The only difference between them are the NAND manufacturing process and the firmware/controllers. So even advancements within MLC are resulting in slower access times. This trend is alarming as it signals an end to the SSD performance bubble. Everything that goes up, must come down. All good things must come to an end. If it's too good to be true, it probably isn't. And so on. Because of this, researchers predict that in 2024 as NAND reaches 6.5nm manufacturing process and SSDs reach 4GB-MLC and 16GB-TLC they will hit the end of their performance gains (tomshardware). SLC and MLC solutions will likely still be faster than HDD technology can ever reach, especially if SLC can come down in price/GB. Either way SSDs will hold a niche as the best performing choice for operating system drives. Since you don't need a huge OS drive, and data can be put on a large conventional HDD, SSD has solidified it's place in the enthusiast computer market.

There are always improvements to be made and manufacturers will come up with stop-gap solutions to these problems. There are some TLC SSDs appearing on the market that are not sacrificing performance thanks to innovative memory caching methods. The controller sets aside a portion of the NAND to use as a caching buffer, writing to this portion as SLC to speed up the writing process. Samsung calls this a "Turbo Write Buffer". However, this method will only be effective as long as the write size is smaller than the cache buffer. If it exceeds the cache buffer the disk starts writing directly to the TLC NAND sacrificing performance. As long as writes don't exceed the Buffer the disk performs like SLC and in this way manufacturers are getting around the limitations of TLC. Remember that although the end is in sight, SSD's will likely be faster than HDD for the foreseeable future.

5.0 out of 5 stars Expectation = Met Reviewed in the United States on July 10, 2013

Intel released this 520 series in late 2011 with the sandforce controller and are killing it. It even comes with a five year warranty! That is unheard of in the SSD industry, especially with the Sandforce controllers which are known for reliability issues. While OCZ encountered problems after rushing to market, the Intel 520s are stable and reliable, if not a year late to the party. Intel tests thoroughly to maintain a high degree of quality. They release products only after they pass rigorous standards. Intel gets the best binned NAND flash memory which will inherently last longer than the lower binned chips other manufacturers receive; it's nice to own the chip factory! Because Intel manufactures the NAND flash, they can conceivably tease more performance and reliability out of them when they write the firmware (anandtech). This gives Intel a decisive advantage. If your on the fence, get this drive, especially now that the price is half of what it was when it released. I picked this up for $175, that's less that $1/GB. That's a mile mark for SSDs!

I went with Intel again because I like the support and reputation. I also like the ease of installation; Clone your drive with the supplied software and replace your old one. Intel drives just work. All the tools and firmware are easily found on Intel's download page. Plus the firmware updates don't erase your data. However, you should back up anyway.

WHAT TO EXPECT: If you are upgrading from a spinning HDD, this will blow your mind. There is no better upgrade that speeds your computer up. Not a CPU upgrade, not a video card, or anything. Everything loads fast, like under a couple of seconds to nearly instantly. The operating system is snappy and smooth. No more being uncertain if it's loading after clicking on a shortcut, it just opens. SSD is pricey, but well worth it IMO. Having said that, if you are contemplating an upgrade from another SSD I have to say the difference is not dramatic. I can notice a difference in this drive compared to my X25-M, but it's not dramatic. It's perhaps not worth the pricy upgrade. I wanted the 180GB so that justifies it for me. Your experience may differ.

WHAT TO WATCH OUT FOR: Make sure to check that your cloned OS is aligned properly or you will not see all the performance benefits of your new drive. When I cloned my drive it did not align the partition properly. I only recently realized this after running AS SSD benchmark. There is a partition alignment display that indicated I had a bad alignment. I went to Intel's download center and found an Acronis Alignment Tool that is for the Intel 500 series. It says that it is only for XP users but I have windows 7 and it worked fine for me. I backed up and ran the tool. It realigned my partition and the improvement is noticeable! My benchmark numbers have been updated below accordingly. I can't believe I missed this

rookie mistake.

NUMBERS: The 180GB version doesn't sacrifice performance. The 120GB and 60GB versions have slower IOPS than the 180GB and 240GB. 75% of what we can perceive as a performance boost comes from Reads. The most important of those are the small file random reads and access time. Pay close attention to the IOPS in the 4K file sizes below, as most system files are in that size range. Access time is also important because it represents the time it takes after reading one file to start to read the next. The lower the access time the better. Below is a comparison to my other Intel SSDs:

Intel X25-M 80GB G2 (SATA 2): - 268MB/s Read, 87MB/s Write maximum throughput, 32,969 IOPS Read 4K QD32, 0.144ms access time, and Windows Experience Index gives it a 7.2.

Intel 510 Elm Crest 120GB (SATA 3): - 477MB/s Read, 223MB/s Write maximum throughput, 21,473 IOPS Read 4K QD32, 0.148ms access time, and Windows Experience Index gives it a 7.8.

This Drive, Intel 520 180GB (SATA 3): - 542MB/s Read, 500MB/s Write maximum throughput, 75,073 IOPS Read 4K QD32, 0.174ms access time, and Windows Experience Index gives it a 7.9.

Even though the maximum throughput shows dramatic performance increases, it doesn't translate much to your perceivable experience; the snappiness of the operating system. You'll notice the 4K IOPS increased from 33,000 to 75,000 (CrystalDiskMark), while the access time actually went up from 0.144ms to 0.174ms (AS SSD). While the net result is still a faster drive, as you would expect, the increasing access time is undermining the performance gains. This represents a fundamental limit in SSD NAND flash technology. It's also a trend that's expected to continue as NAND flash's manufacturing process gets smaller and SSDs increase in size.

IMPORTANT HISTORY: I upgraded from an X25-M 80Gb G2 to an Intel 510 120Gb, and now again to an Intel 520 180Gb. The X25-M was the best drive available when it came out. The 510 was a very good drive, but the Sandforce powered OCZ drives were the king of speed. However, OCZ was and is still having trouble with firmware related issues. The problem is that a customer will report a problem and return the drive, but it will test perfectly in OCZs computers. OCZ has released firmware to fix most issues people have with their drives. They are a reasonable buy, but they are still trying to track down gremlins in the works. I have heard of similar problems from other manufacturers too. If you decide to try these drives, back up your system, update drive firmware, and retain all your purchase information incase you need to return it. Of these issues Intel seems to have the fewest, which is why I keep going with them.

Sandforce tried to track down the problem and had discussions with Intel about it. So it may be an issue with the controller itself. I take it that they were successful in tracking down the problem and ironing it out in the controller. This Intel 520 with the Sandforce controllers are living up to Intel's reputation. Meanwhile OCZ is still having intermittent problems and trying to hide it. Intel must not be sharing what they learned from those discussions with Sandforce. Also, Sandforce must not be allowed to reveal what Intel discovered, that is if Intel even told them at all (anandtech).

ADDITIONAL INFO: Single Level Cell (SLC) SSDs were the first to appear and were very expensive with only small drives. To reduce the cost and increase size the industry went to Multi Level Cells (MLC) while also reducing NAND flash manufacturing process to the current 20nm. However, significantly slower access times are a direct result. There are plans for Triple Level Cell (TLC) and even smaller manufacturing processes to allow even bigger drives to be made for a reasonable price. However, the performance will take another hit. I should point out that the X25-M, 510, and this drive are each MLC. The only difference between them are the NAND manufacturing process and the firmware/controllers. So even advancements within MLC are resulting in slower access times. This trend is alarming as it signals an end to the SSD performance bubble. Everything that goes up, must come down. All good things must come to an end. If it's too good to be true, it probably isn't. And so on. Because of this, researchers predict that in 2024 as NAND reaches 6.5nm manufacturing process and SSDs reach 4GB-MLC and 16GB-TLC they will hit the end of their performance gains (tomshardware). SLC and MLC solutions will likely still be faster than HDD technology can ever reach, especially if SLC can come down in price/GB. Either way SSDs will hold a niche as the best performing choice for operating system drives. Since you don't need a huge OS drive, and data can be put on a large conventional HDD, SSD has solidified it's place in the enthusiast computer market.

There are always improvements to be made and manufacturers will come up with stop-gap solutions to these problems. There are some TLC SSDs appearing on the market that are not sacrificing performance thanks to innovative memory caching methods. The controller sets aside a portion of the NAND to use as a caching buffer, writing to this portion as SLC to speed up the writing process. Samsung calls this a "Turbo Write Buffer". However, this method will only be effective as long as the write size is smaller than the cache buffer. If it exceeds the cache buffer the disk starts writing directly to the TLC NAND sacrificing performance. As long as writes don't exceed the Buffer the disk performs like SLC and in this way manufacturers are getting around the limitations of TLC. Remember that although the end is in sight, SSD's will likely be faster than HDD for the foreseeable future.

4 people found this helpful

Report

Reviewed in the United States on June 11, 2012

I just finished intalling this Intel 520 180 GB version into my setup consisting of ASUS Maximus V Gene Z77 motherboard, combined with Intel i7-3770k (3rd Generation) and 2 TB Hitachi Internal HDD. I had used Intel 311 20GB SSD with a Smart Response Technology (SRT) and also Rapid Storage Technology (RST); these I think are not the same technology, and the SRT is implemented only in the 311 version and in their New 313 version. I wanted to install my SSD 520 using a RAID 0 mode, as I had done with my previous SSD 311 to let the SSD act as a giant cache, to be used with my Hitache 2 TB HDD this time. I was not sure if I could do this, because Intel does not say anything about SRT in the SSD 520 series, but only in the 311 and 313 versions. Anyway, I figured a way out to use my 180 GB SSD 520 series as one giant Cache to the maximum capacity of the 64GB and use the rest of the storate space, about 100 GB as a separate drive. I have to see if this set will be working as I hope in time to come; but right now, my system gives me a green light and every systems working in order, with a lighting fast boot up time on the Windows 7. So, here is how I intalled this:

1. Install the SSD 520 series into your computer chasis, with a power and SATA III cables accordingly, of course.

2. In BIOS setting (Delete Button in the ASUS Motherboard setup), go to Advanced setting and changed the SATA to RAID mode.

3. Also, if you are re-installing everything after having used your computer, press CTRL + I when prompted before the chance to go into the BIOS setting, to set every Drives in the Non-Raid mode, or "Blank" mode (I am not a computer person, so I don't know the appropriate terms).

4. Before the initiation of the installation of the Windows 7, also clean any partitions that your previous Drives might have, also via Advanced mode and Deleting each "Drives" or "Partitions"; these would not destroy your Drives, but Will Delete all the Saved Files, of course.

5. INSTALL YOUR WINDOWS 7 INTO THE HDD, NOT SDD, AS THIS WILL NOT ALLOW THE CACHE FUNCTION TO WORK LATER, based on my 3 attempts to do so (if you doubt, you can try to install the Windows in your SSD).

6. After the Windows 7 Installation, install your Drivers on the Motherboard (included with your Motherboard Purchase) and any Video Card CD (e.g. GPU Divers, if you have one).

7. From this point onwards is IMPORTANT. Using the Intel Rapid Storage Technology Software that you must have intalled by now, included in your Motherboard CD (the icon is located on the lower right corner, if you click on the upwards triagle symbol--it is a squarish SSD-looking symbol in there, or find the software in your Intel Folder from the All Progrom Folder if you click on the Windows Start button on the lower right corner). Then, Accelerate the Device--there are two modes that you can choose from (I chose the more stable, but supposedly slower mode); you can choose the maximum Cache capacity allowed, the 64 GB. After you let the Devices Accelerate your two or three or whatever HDD with the SDD (wait until it is complete), DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT, RESTART YOUR COMPUTER AT THIS POINT!!!

8. DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT, RESTART YOUR COMPUTER AT THIS POINT!!!

9. NOW GO TO INTEL SUPPORT WEBSITE, [...], AND DOWNLOAD THEIR LATEST SSD TOOLBOX AND RUN FIRST, SYSTEM TUNER BUTTON TO "OPTIMIZE THE FEATURE" AND THEN RUN FULL DIAGNOSTIC SCAN. (THESE MAY NOT MATTER, BUT ON MY PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE, FOR SOME REASON, IF I START THE COMPUTER, FOR EXAMPLE AFTER DOWNLOADING INTERNET EXPLORER 9, WHICH PROMPTS YOU TO RESTART YOUR COMPUTER, BEFORE I USE THE INTEL SSD TOOLBOX AND THE FULL DIAGNOSTIC SCAN, MY COMPUTER WOULD NOT BOOT PROPERLY, BUT JUST TRIES TO RE-INSTALL THE WINDOWS 7)

10. IF YOU CANNOT FIND THE REST OF YOUR SSD CAPACITY AFTER USING THE MAXIMUM OF 64 GB AS THE CACHE (E.G. 180 GB - 64 GB = APPROXIMATELY 100 GB), THEN GO TO DISK MANAGEMENT, BY CLICK ON THE WINDOWS BUTTON ON THE LOWER LEFT CORNER--RIGHT CLICK ON THE COMPUTER--CHOOSE MANAGE--AND THEN CLICK ON THE DISK MANAGEMENT UNDER STORAGE; THE REST OF THE STORAGE REMAINING AFTER THE CACHE ASSIGNMENT CAN BE ALLOTED TO BE USED AS AN EXTRA DRIVE, BY RIGHT CLICKING ON THE SCREEN AND FOLLOWING THE PROMPT, JUST A FEW CLICKS OF WORK.

This is how I set up my SSD 520 to be used with my HDD, so that I can use it both as a Giant Cache and SSD.

If you see any problems with the way I set up, please feel free to criticize me.

Thanks.

Ken.

3 people found this helpful

Report

Reviewed in the United States on March 14, 2013

Three year old Dual core Windows 7 computer. About the time I normally buy a new computer. Happy I put this solid state drive in rather then spend on a new computer. Boot time is about 30 seconds now. Civ 5 runs a good deal quicker which I did not expect. A Windows update flashed by the screen in about 5 seconds. Don't need the drive space so I unplugged my old hard drive to save energy... quieter also. My security cameras also come on quicker... used to be my cat set them off but I seldom got a look at her... now there she is going about her kitty business. Computer also snaps awake when I jiggle the mouse. Delighted!

Reviewed in the United States on January 11, 2013

I bought this for the express purpose of creating a boot disk for my virgin Dell XPS 8500 with Windows 8 (dont get me started on Windows 8 as since XP there has not been a single new version of windows that I consider evolutionary or improvement). No cigar. The Intel provided software and touted by, presumebly, people on Intel payroll does not work.

3 people found this helpful

Report

Reviewed in the United States on May 3, 2013

Intel Flash memory has a reputation of being among the finest available and I don't doubt it. Yes, this drive is fast and seems like a dramatic improvement over the rotating drive it replaced. But, buyer be ware. Several SSD mfg. firms, including INTEL, that use the 3rd party SandForce SF-2281 controller in their SSD designs have seen drive compatibility/reliability problems with this chip. In spite of "special firmware" developed by Intel to overcome the controller chips "designed in logic bugs" there seems to be continuing problems. My particular 520 series 180g SSD has consistently failed a full "Intel SSDToolbox" diagnostic scan because the drive locks up the system before it can complete the test. It locks up the system consistently every 5-60 min. of operation requiring a reboot to free it. I will be sending the drive back under warranty but the time wasted tweaking system settings and chasing this problem has made me, like the many others on the Internet seeing similar problems with the Intel 3xx/5xx series of SSDs, very weary of Intel storage products. My advise is to buy another brand not using SandForce controllers until such a time when months, if not years, of reliability comparable to traditional drive products can be confirmed by the using community. Do not only base your buying decision on short term product reviewers that may not catch longer term usage problems.

4 people found this helpful

Report

Reviewed in the United States on December 29, 2012

I replaced my 5400 RPM HDD in my laptop with the Intel SSD, and it is by far the best upgrade I have made in a long time. It is now clear that by having an i7 CPU, 8GB of RAM, and an Nvidia graphics card, a HDD was a bottleneck in performance.

The read/write speeds on this device are phenomenal. Windows 8 boots, from the moment I press the start button to the login screen, in about five seconds. Applications like Google Chrome load instantly, and others like Libreoffice take no more than a second to load from a cold start. Also, loading of levels or maps in games is now almost instantaneous.

This drive is quiet, which should be obvious since there are no moving parts. As a side effect, there aren't any vibrations coming from it either. Now the only part moving in my laptop is the cooling fan, and I am no longer bothered by the low hum of a HDD.

Power consumption for this drive is great. I can now push six hours on a charge compared to five hours before with the HDD.

Support is pretty good. Intel has their SSD Toolbox available for download which provides functionality like service configuration, diagnostics, updating firmware, etc, for extending the usable lifespan of SSDs. Also, having a five year warranty is always nice.

Unfortunately, I have encountered some problems. The cables which come with the SSD are for desktop machines. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but a USB-to-SATA adapter which was recommended in the manual for data migrations in laptops was absent. While I did have a spare drive bay, this can be an inconvenience for anyone trying to migrate their data from one drive to another.

Another thing was that the migration utility could not migrate my data, having chosen the new SSD as a target drive while failing to select my HDD at all. I had to manually migrate data between the two drives, which was a nuisance. It seems that the problems were caused by the GPT layout of the HDD, which is a ridiculous problem to have in 2012 after Windows 8 ships with GPT by default.

Besides the problematic experience regarding data migration, I am very satisfied with the drive and I recommend it.

2 people found this helpful

Report

Reviewed in the United States on September 9, 2013

The drive is amazing. The prices on these things have come down so much over the years, I figured, why not go with the company that makes my computer's processor? Made my daughter's Lenovo Thinkpad boot up very fast, improved her upload/download times, and even made it run a bit longer on battery. Beat buying a new computer going off to college. Only gotcha was that when this arrived, we realized it was not the kit for installing into a laptop - it did not come with the double-ended usb / SATA interface cord needed for a laptop swap. We ended up paying a computer repair guy $50 to install it rather than hassle with it, and that was probably money well spent. All in all we are completely satisfied with this drive and our Amazon experience.

Reviewed in the United States on February 7, 2013

This 2.5" drive come with a standard adapter to install in a 3.5" bay. Unfortunately my brand new Dell Optiplex 9010 has nice but non-standard drive brackets (plastic no tools) so I couldn't cleanly install the drive. This isn't Intel problem it is Dell's. Would you believe that it took 2.5 hours on chat and phone to Dell parts sales and then technical support to order the $6.00 part?

Once installed cleanly, everything else was trivial. You download Intel's version of Acronis from the Intel website, install the software, and clone your current drive. Ten minutes elapsed time. Either change cables or change the boot sequence and you are done.

Comparing the Intel 520 180 GB drive with the Western Digital WD2500AAKX, you get wonderful improvement. My boot time has decreased by more than 90%. There is no longer a noticeable delay when loading porky applications like Excel.

Here is some data from HD Tune.

transfer rate (Intel) 203 MB/sec (WD) 100 MB/sec so twice the performance!

Access time (Intel) 0.1 ms (WD) 15.5 ms just what you would expect

Burst rate: (Intel) 176 MB/sec (WD) 168 MB/sec the same

Reviewed in the United States on February 18, 2013

This is a replacement for my X25-M. That drive lasted and still have ~95% life left after 3 years, according to Intel's tools. It was only 80GB, so too small for what I wanted. I got the 520 in the 180GB capacity; it allows me to move all of my VMs to the SSD, making them run much better.

The 520 is not the cheapest SSD. While functionally identical to other SF-2281 drives, this one has been validated and has a custom firmware, plus Intel's top-shelf flash memory. That was worth the extra money to me, but it may not to you.

I'm only using it on a SATA2 port, but it is more than fast enough there. This is one of the fastest SSDs you can get. Worth the money, and recommended.

Reviewed in the United States on September 26, 2012

I bought this drive to install and point all of my Cache folders to. Espeacially Adobe After Effects CS6. I have it set to use 100gb of space. it works awesome. While Im working on a project things seem to run very smooth and quiet. When I had my Cache point to a spare internal hard disk, it was very loud and crunchy every time i made a mouse click or scrubbed through an AE project. This is wayyyyy better. Works the same way for Photoshop scratch disc and Cinema 4D Cache. I now dream that someday computers will be filled with many Terabytes of SSD.... at an affordable price.

If you have an extra spot to install another drive, and you use graphics software, you know what to do.

How fast is the Intel SSD 520 series 180GB?

By combining Intel's leading 25nm NAND flash memory technology with SATA 6Gb/s interface support, the Intel SSD 520 Series delivers sequential read speeds of up to 550 MB/s and sequential write speeds of up to 520 MB/s.

What is the lifespan of Intel SSD 520?

The entire 520 line utilizes the SATA 6Gb/s interface and according to Intel has a 5 year minimum useful lifespan with up to 20GB a day written. The drives will be available in sizes of 60GB, 120GB, 180GB, 240GB and 480GB.

When did Intel SSD 520 come out?

In February 2012, Intel launched the SSD 520 series solid state drives using the SandForce SF-2200 controller with sequential read and write speeds of 550 and 520 MB/s respectively with random read and write IOPS as high as 80,000.

How much power does Intel 520 SSD use?

The Intel 520 series makes use of synchronized 29F16B08CCME2 NAND chips (25 nm format). According to Intel, the power consumption of the drives is 850 mW (during use) and 600 mW (idle).