I know I know... this has probably been asked many times before... But I'd like to just focus mainly on SLC's weaknesses..

Here is quote from Bit-tech...

"Unlike with mechanical or MLC drives where data can be stored in multiple states, the SLC memory only modulates between written and unwritten. This means that once the drive has written to each cell, rewriting to them means the drive must first set the cell from written, to unwritten and then back to written in accordance with the new data, doubling the write times the second time the drive needs to write to that particular cell."

But here... TheTechReport states.. "However, that drive [X25-M] is going to run out of write-erase cycles much quicker than the X25-E, which should last ten times longer thanks to the higher endurance of SLC memory."

And here Tom's Hardware is saying...

"Our benchmark cycle alternated traditional throughput and I/O benchmarks three times, and added three more throughput test runs to see whether or not the SSDs are capable of returning from degraded throughput levels to the sequential performance levels you actually paid for. As expected, all SSDs showed a performance decrease, but only the two products based on MLC flash exhibited significant performance drops. The impact on I/O performance is typically small and acceptable, while throughput on the two MLC flash SSDs by Intel and Samsung suffered quite a bit [As opposed to the Intel X25-E (SLC)]."

Throughout all three reviews, their opinions on SLC vs MLC differ drastically.
Bit-tech are the only one against SLC however the other two favor SLC.

Which really is the better? (Money aside of course) xD