Originally Posted by Mfusick
+1 I will agree with this.
I guess I am generalizing based on the previous 12 month selling prices in my preference and opinions.
Traditionally- the Intel drives have indeed cost more than many Sandforce based SSD's that outperform them in benchmarks.
My entire feeling about this whole SSD thing is based on this being true.
If Intel was suddenly cheaper- and faster- and still had the 5 year warranty to the point of all things equal- I would indeed also choose the Intel and extra warranty.
But that is not reality. Reality is they cost more and benchmark slower on average. Those two factors are the deal breaker for me.
I started buying OCZ before the current Sandforce controller got the bad reputation- and continued buying without hesitation and have not been burned yet. I know I am coming from a different viewpoint than a new purchaser.
But my hope is that they would at least consider them and not automatically believe all the BS they read about people bad mouthing them when they don't even own them or know what they are talking about.
I thought you said that speed was basically the same. In your words "a 5-10% performance bump most normal people would be hard to tell existed".
I agree with you that they are the same for HTPC. For gaming or desktop use then sure there might be a noticeable difference.
I think you are trying to go out of your way to defend OCZ for some reason. No one has said that OCZ is inferior. But you can see why some people choose one over the other.
To put it another way let's do a blind comparison...
100% performance boost from baseline, less reliable reputation (but still GOOD and very acceptable), 3 year warranty, $100
Option B: 90% boost from baseline, more reliable reputation, 5 year warranty, $100
For HTPC the 100% and 90% performance boost is roughly a wash. So I will take option B assuming they are the same price. If option B is more expensive then I might go with option A.
So in the end that's where we are. I think its quite simple really.