I've done quite a lot of SSD "research" (well, I've read reviews, forums and stuff
) these past few weeks because even though I already have a nice 160GB Intel X-25 (2nd gen) I kind of want to replace it with a bigger model when I make the switch to a Z68 board and an i5-2500K.
I was really interested in the new SandForce models because of the top performance of these drives but it seems like the various manufacturers (OCZ leading the bunch) are having significant quality issues. For example, OCZ shipped the Vertex 3 with firmware 2.02. Then they released three(!) new firmwares in short order which were 2.06, 2.08 and 2.09 and now they are rolling back to 2.08 because in addition to BSODing, 2.09 introduced a freezing issue to make matters even worse. They claim it's just a veeery low percentage of drives that are affected but what else would they say?
Anyway, to cut it short, I've come to the conclusion that unless you play benchmarks (which I don't think anyone of us does) there is very little difference in the real world performance of SSDs and any SSD is always miles better and faster than a HDD. Level load times in games, for example, are usually only a second or so apart from the fastest to the slowest drive in any given test. Same for application start-up times. There is usually only a very minor difference in real world scenarios.
That's why I would always choose a big, reliable drive over a (theoretically) faster but potentially less reliable drive. I mean we are talking about a drive where you install your OS. It better be 100% reliable and stable, right?
So.... *drum roll*... I have personally decided to buy an Intel 320 300GB SSD. Yes, it is based on the "ancient" Intel controller that has already been powering the X-25 drives. Yes, it "only" has a SATA2 interface. Yes, the PC Mark Vantage score is quite a bit lower than the latest SandForce offerings.
But it is extremely reliable (Intel claims that the return ratio for these drives is ~0.6%). Intel has also just generously extended the warranty for the 320 series from three years to five years so it gives their claim some credibility. It is also nice to have ~50 - 60GB more than other SSDs in the same price range. It offers more than enough space for the OS and just about every app and game you might want to install.
So for any average/enthusiast desktop user or gamer, it seems to me like this is the perfect drive for the next couple of years. Thanks to the extended warranty, it should also have a good resale value if one should decide to get rid of it in two or three years.
If I did it, will I get better results making it my system partition - which means it won't fit many games - or my "games" drive, which is fine but means the system is still relying on the standard HDD for a bunch of stuff?
I have my OS and all of my apps (Office 2010 and lots of the general desktop utilities that probably most people have) and all of my games (incl. Steam) on my Intel SSD. All of my "junk data" like pictures, photos, movies and mp3s is on a separate HDD (an internal one and an external for backup).
I wouldn't separate the OS and applications/games unless you are on an extremely tight budget and can only afford a small system SSD. The number 1 reason you want an SSD is to take advantage of its "smoothness" and the fast (and silent) start-up times and loading operations etc. - Definitely put everything that involves an executable on the SSD. It really makes a big difference. I know I will not ever go back to a spinning hard drive.
Finally, as with most hardware-related stuff, I'd recommend checking out some of these excellent Anandtech articles:
OCZ Vertex 3 MAX IOPS & Patriot Wildfire SSDs Reviewed
The 2011 Mid-Range SSD Roundup: 120GB Agility 3, Intel 510 and More Compared
The Intel SSD 320 Review: 25nm G3 is Finally Here