Intel SSD 320 Series 300GB Solid State Drive Review

Article Index:   

Our Test MethodologiesUnder each test condition, the Solid State Drives tested here were installed as secondary volumes in our testbed, with a standard spinning hard disk for the OS and benchmark installations.  The SSDs were left blank without partitions wherever possible, unless a test required them to be partitioned and formatted, as was the case with our ATTO, Vantage, and CrystalDiskMark benchmark tests. Windows firewall, automatic updates and screen savers were all disabled before testing. In all test runs, we rebooted the system and waited several minutes for drive activity to settle before invoking a test.

HotHardware Test System
Intel Core i7 and SSD Powered

Processor -

Motherboard -

Video Card -

Memory -

Audio -

Hard Drives -


Hardware Used:
Intel Core i7-2600K

Asus P8P67 Deluxe
(P67 Chipset)

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285

4GB Patriot DDR3-1600

Integrated on board

WD Raptor 150GB (OS Drive)
Intel SSD 320 Series (300GB)
Intel SSD 510 Series (250GB)
OCZ Vertex 3 (240GB)
OCZ Vertex 2 (120GB)
Corsair Performance 3 Series (128GB)
Intel X25-M G2 (160GB)

OS -
Chipset Drivers -
DirectX -

Video Drivers

Relevant Software:
Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Intel, iRST
DirectX 11

NVIDIA GeForce 266.58

Benchmarks Used:
IOMeter 1.1.0 RC
HD Tach v3
ATTO v2.46
CrystalDiskMark v3.01 x64
PCMark Vantage
SiSoftware Sandra 2011

 I/O Subsystem Measurement Tool

As we've noted in previous SSD articles, though IOMeter is clearly a well-respected industry standard drive benchmark, we're not completely comfortable with it for testing SSDs. The fact of the matter is, though our actual results with IOMeter appear to scale properly, it is debatable whether or not certain access patterns, as they are presented to and measured on an SSD, actually provide a valid example of real-world performance for the average end user. That said, we do think IOMeter is a gauge for relative available bandwidth and response times with a given storage solution. In addition there are certain higher-end workloads you can place on a drive with IOMeter, that you really can't with most other benchmark tools available currently.

In the following tables, we're showing two sets of access patterns; our Workstation pattern, with an 8K transfer size, 80% reads (20% writes) and 80% random (20% sequential) access and IOMeter's default access pattern of 2K transfers, 67% reads (34% writes) and 100% random access.


The new Intel SSD 320 series drives trails all of the SandForce-based drives in our IOMeter tests, but outperforms the Marvel-based SSD 510 series and Corsair Performance 3 series drives. Versus the previous-gen X25-M, the new SSD 320 series drive takes the lead in the workstation access pattern, but trails using IOMeter's default pattern.

Image gallery

Related content


rapid1 3 years ago

I think the biggest thing here is anyone that gets an SSD is at least going to be somewhat of an enthusiast. That being said I also think most of the are going to realize the performance level of this drive is somewhat lacking. All the other features seem great, but it performs at a lower and in some cases much lower than say an OCZ Sata3 unit does. The price is almost the same as well I believe as well.

coolice 3 years ago

300 gigs? Woah man, That high... pretty soon we'll be touching even higher number @ lower prices. Cant wait till the day I get to buy a 1tb ssd for ~$200. It will happen

realneil 3 years ago

These prices aren't too bad. I want to see what OCZ comes up with now that they've bought their own SSD drive controller company. (much lower SSD drive costs being the thing we want to see,.......)

OSunday 3 years ago

All I can say is if this was sent to HH just to review, I hope yall handled it with car cause damaging this thing and having to pay for it would, you know only cost an arm and a leg

marco c 3 years ago

We stopped worring about damaging hardware a LONG time ago. :) The first think I did when this drive arrived was rip it open and take pics.

realneil 3 years ago

Do they blend?

OSunday 3 years ago

Hahaha I've had some terrible experiences getting to excited opening gifts and thing shipped through the mail, and being to harsh in doing so

It's commonly known as NINTENDO-SIXTY-FOURRRRRRR-Syndrome, in honor of the child who almost gave himself an aneurysm when receiving a N64 for christmas.

I can picture it in my head "300 GIGABYTE 320 SERIES INTEL ESSSSS-ESSSSS-DEEEEEE!!!!"

*rip, rip*, *snaps pictures*

Youtube link below :)

Der Meister 3 years ago

You guys should do a test on a SSD to see how much they can take compared to a normal spinning HD. Ie, Drops; run over with car, Oven, ect... 

DScheive 3 years ago

risky move trading speed for security... i think alot of people wont be interested in this at all

rapid1 3 years ago

The big thing about SSD's versus a normal mechanical HD is no moving parts (were talking durability wise) As long as it is internally constructed well with sufficient padding (shock protection) it is basically a metal box full of memory chips on a PCB. If you drop a regular HD all kinds of bad things can happen with all the moving parts inside. With an SSD it would seem the risk of damaging it would be way lower.

Chicagofarker 3 years ago


This would probly quiet my computer by 60%+, I have 4 eSata Drives in my chassy, and it's NOISY. It's so noisey I had to get noise reduction headphones. I look forward to prices being at a level comparable to the old traditional platter HD's level.

rapid1 3 years ago

One thing on the security thing though, in a professional market that is expected and paid for on a regular basis. Commercially though I agree with DScheive no one is going to think of this as a major plus I don't think.

dorbeetle 3 years ago

I just got mine, and for some reason I get different results with crystaldiskmark on my 320 series 80gb:

CrystalDiskMark 3.0.1 x64 (C) 2007-2010 hiyohiyo

Crystal Dew World :


* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

Sequential Read : 256.438 MB/s

Sequential Write : 95.074 MB/s

Random Read 512KB : 131.918 MB/s

Random Write 512KB : 97.413 MB/s

Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 20.568 MB/s [ 5021.6 IOPS]

Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 41.648 MB/s [ 10168.0 IOPS]

Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 21.402 MB/s [ 5225.2 IOPS]

Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 49.075 MB/s [ 11981.2 IOPS]

Test : 1000 MB [I: 0.1% (0.1/74.5 GB)] (x5)

Date : 2011/07/25 22:31:51

OS : Windows 7 Ultimate Edition SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)

Any ideas why? Can the size matter that much?

spiderdesin one year ago

this is faulty drive I had a dark experience with this defective drive and made a website to share my experience u guys can check on: d a m n i n t e l dot c o m

Post a Comment
or Register to comment