Best SSDs For The Money: August 2011

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
Where is OCZ Vertex 3, is more faster than Adata and Crucial crap and it's only 200$
 

flong

Distinguished
Dec 27, 2010
1,106
0
19,310
18
The Crucial SSDs are interesting but they are slow compared to comparable Sandforce drives. The do well in 4k writes but are slower in all other benchmarks. I am not sure why they are recommended here. The Intel 310 is similarly slow and again and Intel has had recent reliability problems (the 8GB bug) and so they can no longer claim the to be the most reliable.

So the Crucial and the Intel SSDs are again on this months list and I cannot follow the reasoning as to why. Here is a review of the M4 in today's Hardware Canucks. The 120GB Wildfire absolutely spanks the 256GB M4 in nearly every benchmark and it is half the size. The reviewer does say it is a good alternative to the 2281 Sandforce drives with Trim support - however the third generation Sandforce drives absolutely spank the M4 in almost every situation but non-Trim environments.

The Kingston Hyper Extreme is now the fastest 120 GB SSD available. To be fair to Tom's, they haven't tested it yet.

While I respect these choices, the only one I agree with is the recommendation of the Patriot Wildfire or the Mushkin Extreme for an enthusiast. The fact that they use more expensive high quality RAM sells me to them. However the Kingston Hyper 120 GB is testing as significantly faster in pro reviews and it is cheaper.
 

Max_DTH

Distinguished
Apr 25, 2011
5
0
18,510
0
Guys, what do you think about idea of SSD's in RAID 0?
2x Crucial m4 64GB in RAID 0 vs Crucial m4 128GB - the same capacity, the same price.
2x Crucial m4 128GB in RAID 0 vs Crucial m4 256GB - the same capacity, RAID is $75 more expensive.
RAID would have higher failure rate, but I suppose that in both cases peformance would be higher (with two 128GB a lot I guess, because 256GB is not much faster than 128GB).
I'm talking here about Intel's build in RAID e.g with P67 (RAID card would made thing pointless price-wise). Can it handle such SSD RAIDs getting most out of it?

I know, that recommending RAID is not the same as recommending SLI/Crossfire, but is it worth considering when space and ports are not a problem (in my case actually they are, but I would cope with that for noticable price/performance ratio improvement :))?
 

greenrider02

Distinguished
Dec 18, 2010
192
0
18,690
3
@Max_DTH, I'm doing two 96GB Kingston SSDNow V100+ drives in RAID0 and I've had success. At $215 for a total 192 GB I could not resist. It's not that you will have problems, it's just a risk. You have to make sure you have updated firmware and RAID controllers, and be ready to do a fresh install of your operating system. Since I keep all my data on storage drives and just put OS+programs+games(with Steam backups on the storage drives) on the RAID drives, I have no qualms with wiping the drives and starting over. It only takes a few hours. And I did get an error in my RAID forcing me to do this. From what I understand, most errors in your array will not be a dead drive and can be solved by wiping the array and rebuilding it.

So I recommend giving it a try. Good luck!

To the article: I don't know about recommending the OCZ Agility2 240GB, as, looking at newegg reviews, it seems that most capacities of the Agility2 and Vertex2 are prone to failure compared to their competitors
 

Scotty99

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2010
434
0
18,810
10
Sooo i just got an e-mail from newegg and these SSD's are on sale for less than 1 dollar per GB, problem is they have no reviews and i would like your guys opinion on these:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227738&nm_mc=EMC-IGNEFL082611&cm_mmc=EMC-IGNEFL082611-_-EMC-082611-Index-_-SSD-_-20227738-L0A

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227739&nm_mc=EMC-IGNEFL082611&cm_mmc=EMC-IGNEFL082611-_-EMC-082611-Index-_-SSD-_-20227739-L01C

Also, would it be a better idea to get two of the 60gb's for raid, or just get the 120?

 

banthracis

Distinguished
Oct 13, 2009
3,032
0
21,160
153
@flong you obviously read a different review than the rest of us. Straight from the hardware canucks article

The benchmark and real world performance numbers ... make the M4 a much better option than the Performance 3 in nearly every situation. It also ends up being a very good alternative to SF2281-based drives for people who have TRIM-enabled OSes.

A combination of power and performance across a wide swath of operating environments will make the Crucial M4 a great choice for many consumers. But the most important selling point here is price. The 256GB version of this drive retails for significantly less than many comparable enthusiast level SF2281 drives and also undercuts similar Marvell-based SATA6G SSDs as well. And what’s not to like about that?
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/45718-crucial-m4-256gb-ssd-review-13.html

Real world results shows very little difference between the best and worst SSD's with the only exception being large file transfer times, but who the heck buys an SSD to store large amounts of media files on it?

Wildfire 120gb is $2.30 per gb after MIR.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220599

M4 240gb is $1.29 per gb right now.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148443

If anything, given the minimal real world difference, it's the wildfire and other SF drives that look like horrendous deals.
 

cadder

Distinguished
Nov 17, 2008
1,702
0
19,860
43
I think we focus too much on the speed of the SSD's. A drive that transfers 230MB/s and has very small access times might not sound good compared to a drive that transfers 550MB/s, but it is very much faster than rotating hard drives. But even at that much speed more than a rotating hard drive it doesn't make that much difference to the speed of the computer. From 230MB/s to 550MB/s might be difficult for the computer user to actually detect.

I think the most important rating for SSD's right now should be the reliability. For instance look at the recommendation above for the OCZ Agility 3 60GB. My contention is that 39% of the users on newegg are dissatisfied with this drive. I could never consider purchasing a product where 39% of the users hated it. Another recommendation above is the Adata S511 120GB. It has similar user review statistics but there may not be enough reviews for the statistics to be valid.
 

youssef 2010

Distinguished
Jan 1, 2009
1,263
0
19,360
32
[citation][nom]scotty99[/nom]Sooo i just got an e-mail from newegg and these SSD's are on sale for less than 1 dollar per GB, problem is they have no reviews and i would like your guys opinion on these:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 227738-L0Ahttp://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 27739-L01CAlso, would it be a better idea to get two of the 60gb's for raid, or just get the 120?[/citation]

Get the 120GB Vertex 3. I recommend you stay away from Indilinx controlled drives. Also, as the article mentioned, 120Gigs is the sweet spot of performance and price
 

flong

Distinguished
Dec 27, 2010
1,106
0
19,310
18
[citation][nom]banthracis[/nom]@flong you obviously read a different review than the rest of us. Straight from the hardware canucks articlehttp://www.hardwarecanucks.com/for [...] ew-13.htmlReal world results shows very little difference between the best and worst SSD's with the only exception being large file transfer times, but who the heck buys an SSD to store large amounts of media files on it?Wildfire 120gb is $2.30 per gb after MIR. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6820220599M4 240gb is $1.29 per gb right now.http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6820148443If anything, given the minimal real world difference, it's the wildfire and other SF drives that look like horrendous deals.[/citation]

You have a point - especially about cost. If cost is the primary concern, then the M4 256 GB is the best choice.

That being said - go back and check the benchmarks. The 120GB Patriot Wildfire absolutely spanks the 256 GB M4 in almost every benchmark - which is kind of embarrassing for a 256 GB drive. Will a user notice the difference? Maybe if they are used to a faster SSD. The new Kingston Hyper blows the doors off of the Wildfire and it is $256 on Newegg.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820139601

The Kingston 120 GB SSD just flat out embarrasses the M4 as far as speed in every benchmark and it is $130 less (but it is only 120GB)

Since we have the SATA III standard, I would like my SSD to push that standard as far as speed. The M4 doesn't. Still I can see why people like it - jeeesh $390 for a 256 GB SSD is cheap. To be fair I did acknowledge the conclusion of the review in Hardware Canucks in my above post - but I disagree with some of their points
 

larkspur

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2011
2,090
14
20,465
305
Hi Tom's! Thanks for putting the SSD hierarchy chart in there. I was thinking it would also be really useful to add a column to that chart for controller type. A possibility?
 

banthracis

Distinguished
Oct 13, 2009
3,032
0
21,160
153
@flong
The article is title best SSD for the money though.

Sure some people want the absolute best damn the cost and if this article was title best performing SSD's out there, your argument is valid.

However, in a best SSD for the money article, an average 20% performance increase on artificial benchmarks for a 78% price increase per gb makes no sense.
 

buzznut

Splendid
[citation][nom]Max_DTH[/nom]Guys, what do you think about idea of SSD's in RAID 0?2x Crucial m4 64GB in RAID 0 vs Crucial m4 128GB - the same capacity, the same price.2x Crucial m4 128GB in RAID 0 vs Crucial m4 256GB - the same capacity, RAID is $75 more expensive.RAID would have higher failure rate, but I suppose that in both cases peformance would be higher (with two 128GB a lot I guess, because 256GB is not much faster than 128GB).I'm talking here about Intel's build in RAID e.g with P67 (RAID card would made thing pointless price-wise). Can it handle such SSD RAIDs getting most out of it?I know, that recommending RAID is not the same as recommending SLI/Crossfire, but is it worth considering when space and ports are not a problem (in my case actually they are, but I would cope with that for noticable price/performance ratio improvement )?[/citation]

One word: Trim. Or the lack thereof. This is the number one reason not to recommend raid for SSD's because trim can not function for raided SSDs. So what? Performance degradation, otherwise why pay extra for an SSD if its not for performance edge.
 

andyzaharia

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2010
2
0
18,510
0
After having an OCZ dead, replaced by another one which also died, faster this time, in only 2 hours... no way I'm going with them again. Having an Intel SSD for 6 months now, and works like a charm.
 

sirmorluk

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2009
141
0
18,680
0
Just replaced my Samsung 470 128 GB with a new Kingston HyperX 128 GB
Scored 537 Mb read and 506 Write. 2nd Gen Sandforce is impressive.
 

flong

Distinguished
Dec 27, 2010
1,106
0
19,310
18
[citation][nom]banthracis[/nom]@flongThe article is title best SSD for the money though. Sure some people want the absolute best damn the cost and if this article was title best performing SSD's out there, your argument is valid. However, in a best SSD for the money article, an average 20% performance increase on artificial benchmarks for a 78% price increase per gb makes no sense.[/citation]

I understand your point - I really do. However I disagree that the M4 256 GB is the best bang for your buck at $390 when the Vertex 3 can be bought for $440 on sale and the Kingston Hyper X 240 GB will probably be very competitive cost-wise. So in all fairness, we are not talking about a 78% increase in cost. We are talking about what these SSDs are available for. The prices always fluctuate.

I also agree with that the artificial benchmarks can be misleading. However in the real world benchmarks, the M4 doesn't do that well either and these benchmarks are real-world like Vista load time.

Don't get me wrong, I think that the M4 is a competent drive. I just don't agree it is the best drive for the buck. I am not putting anyone down who has M4s - heck my SSD is not the fastest. I also looked seriously at buying the M4 before I purchased mine, but the reviews dissuaded me. I just think it is very slow for a third generation SSD. Some of the differences are more than 20% but even 20% performance increase is significant.
 

beenthere

Distinguished
Jun 23, 2011
1,849
1
20,160
140
As the second paragraph of this review emphasizes, consumer grade SSDs are simply NOT READY for primetime due to reliability and compatibility issues. Maybe some day the manufactures will ship quality products instead of half-baked crap. I suspect that would happen much sooner than later if consumers would actually stop buying the crap products shipping.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS