I checked a lot of articles and benchmarks and found that what @Crazy_Eddy said made sense. Here's why -
Sandisk Ultra is a standard implementation and the speeds are due to a good marvel controller and some hardware magic.
Samsung has a lot of Dram (128gb has 128~256mb Dram and it increases with size.) The Intel does preliminary writes in the Dram and then writes the data on idle. This is what you basically call hacking the process, its innovative, but doesnt work really well when the data is more. Secondly its TLC and the life is low (comparatively though most estimate it would last 10 years.) Plus it was 700bucks costlier. There are issues with sleep (go to their page and it says doesnt support sleep) The samsung software will wake you pc a few seconds after you put it to sleep.
About the Intel, the benchmarks and price combo really made me keep distance.
For the price and performance Sandisk seemed like the best pick. Check this review for more -> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ultra-plus-ssd-nand,3502.html
My recommendations of Intel is due to the fact that usually, it is an easy fix. Warranty too, is not a big hassle, as it comes with intl warranty.
After reading the article, I realize that there is now a third option apart from Intel and Samsung.[DOUBLEPOST=1407777667][/DOUBLEPOST]
Just keep your important data separate. Data recovery is more difficult from SSD compared with regular platter-based HDDs.
That is, IMO, a misnomer. Unless the data is extremely valuable - in which case the OP would have made backups - the cost of recovering from platter based HDDs is itself expensive to recover.