Best SSDs For The Money: August 2012 (Archive)

[Beezy]

if many people complain about one manufacturer like OCZ like we have seen here and on the web than it is reasonable to be cautious buying their products
one of the reason techs go to sites is to get reviews and opinions on products

my OCZ failed in like 7 months lol so yeah

 

[king smp]

The problem is that people invest themselves into the products they buy
so when you criticize the product they they get defensive and take it personal
this is the core of fanboism
me personally I have an Intel and AMD rig
and I like having an Nvidia in one and and AMD gpu in the other
I am a IT pro so for me owning a variety of products is important in my learning curve

 

[cwatkin]

One thing that was left out of this article is the fact that the Samsung 840 EVO 1TB uses TLC or triple layer NAND instead of the more common 2 layer MLC used in the Crucial M500 960GB unit which I consider to be the only two drives in their class. While you have a tad more space with the Samsung 840 EVO 1TB and it also is likely faster under most usage scenarios, the TLC has a much shorter rated lifespan than the MLC. Now, I know that most people will never wear out an SSD, much less one this large which has plenty of room for the controller to wear-level the NAND, I do like the security of the 3K NAND used in the M500. Now, I understand that torture tests show the top-shelf TLC picked by Samsung tends to outlast its rated writes by 2-3 times and that most 3K rated NAND does the same so you tend to get more than you pay for in this regard.

I already own a Crucial M500 960GB and am considering another drive in this class. The only ones in this price range are the M500 and the 840 EVO. Another advantage is that both of these use the 7mm form factor which makes them more versatile.

While I feel that both of these are very nice drives, I think it should be noted that only one uses TLC in case certain users require additional PE cycles for heavy uses.

 

[RedJaron]

One thing that was left out of this article is the fact that the Samsung 840 EVO 1TB uses TLC or triple layer NAND instead of the more common 2 layer MLC used in the Crucial M500 960GB unit which I consider to be the only two drives in their class. While you have a tad more space with the Samsung 840 EVO 1TB and it also is likely faster under most usage scenarios, the TLC has a much shorter rated lifespan than the MLC. Now, I know that most people will never wear out an SSD, much less one this large which has plenty of room for the controller to wear-level the NAND, I do like the security of the 3K NAND used in the M500. Now, I understand that torture tests show the top-shelf TLC picked by Samsung tends to outlast its rated writes by 2-3 times and that most 3K rated NAND does the same so you tend to get more than you pay for in this regard.

I already own a Crucial M500 960GB and am considering another drive in this class. The only ones in this price range are the M500 and the 840 EVO. Another advantage is that both of these use the 7mm form factor which makes them more versatile.

While I feel that both of these are very nice drives, I think it should be noted that only one uses TLC in case certain users require additional PE cycles for heavy uses.

The TLC was mentioned extensively in the drive review article, though. I would guess the reason it wasn't mentioned specifically here is that, as you say, this is good quality TLC that won't wear out in any normal usage situation, so it's largely not an issue.

 

[king smp]

I am an owner of an 840 Evo so this was a concern to me.
Then I thought about it and realized that how long do I really keep a HDD for?
Barring major defects and just concerning wear the lifespan of any SSD is longer than I would normally have the drive for
Due to need for larger capacity,greater speed or selling the system chances are I won't keep the any HDD more than five years tops.
I think this is true for alot of enthusiasts also IMHO.

I do think that in the enterprise sector that TLC should be shied away from for the time being.

 

[Iamaclay]

Glad my new build is getting a 250GB EVO for $180 AUD and my current has a 256GB 830. Even running on a SATA II it is a beast.

 

[Kenth Kristoffer Lachica]

Why are the comments are all from 2012?

 

[logainofhades]

Why are the comments are all from 2012?

Because they don't make a new thread every month. It is just one long continuing thread. :lol:

 

[f-14]

what Tom's is really saying is ' don't bother reading the advertisements or our best ______ for the $ because were paid to exclude the best deals you can get from some where else by the companies we advertise. '

time and again i see microcenter and other places excluded.
despite a great price since april of 2013
SanDisk Ultra Plus 256GB SATA 6.0Gb/s Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
Usually ships in 1-3 business days.

$169.99
Shipping $5.99
Grand Total (pre-tax) $175.98

"Prices and availability change on a daily basis. Our picks will be valid the month of publication, but we can't extend our choices very far beyond that time frame. SSD pricing is especially competitive, and a $15 difference can be the reason why one SSD makes the list, while another does not. As you shop, use our list as a guide, but always double-check for yourself."

if you live within 50 miles of a microcenter they dropped price on the i7-4770k down to $249.99 they do not ship CPU's however so best of luck to the rest of you.

 

[photonboy]

Christopher Ryan,
Games do not "load in the blink of an eye" with an SSD either, regardless of how fast it is.

Please don't exaggerate in an article like this that discusses performance.

Due to factors like the CPU and GPU, the average game may load 2x as fast as an HDD. Some slightly faster.

 

[king smp]

I agree photonboy
I wouldnt describe the loading process like an blink of an eye
been playing alot of Bioshock Infinite lately and those levels take some time to load.
a fast mechanical can hit 200 mb/s on sustained reads while a ssd hits 500 or so
so that would be about two times faster

 

[Azn Cracker]

huh the prices are rather high. I just got the crucial m500 240gb for $110

According to toms, the 120 gb goes for the same price. However if you search for it you can easily get it for $87 on amazon

 

[lazykoala]

Everyone's eyes drift to the biggest numbers, but what really matters is the price for performance and clearly the the Sandisk ultra plus 256gb and Samsung 840pro 128gb win out there. I'm glad I have a sandisk and unless you need the absolute best for the highest price, I don't see why you wouldn't go for highest performance per dollar.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

Everyone's eyes drift to the biggest numbers, but what really matters is the price for performance and clearly the the Sandisk ultra plus 256gb and Samsung 840pro 128gb win out there. I'm glad I have a sandisk and unless you need the absolute best for the highest price, I don't see why you wouldn't go for highest performance per dollar.

I'm curious as to how the 840 Pro beats the 840/840 Evo. It's a lot pricier, but not a whole lot faster.

 

[JohnUSA]

None of these will do it for me. I will wait till SATA Express is released next year and then I will be interested in getting a new SSD and a new motherboard as it will double my speed for sure. These here are still slow for me.

 

[marraco]

Where is Samsung 840 EVO in RAID0????

 

[scorpion777]

The Best SSD for the Money is Corsair Force GT Series, in any size.
It is faster than most of these that are priced higher.

 

[therogerwilco]

HEY TOMS!!!!!!
Please start including Mushkin drives...

I've see you put the Chronos deluxe at the top in the hierarchy for awhile now, and I understand because my drives are non-deluxe and hit 400+ CONSTANTLY on reads/writes, but they can't stay the fastest forever can they?

For anyone wondering, I have two Enhanced Chronos (which some guys makes fun of for some reason? lol) in Raid0, they hit max 1.1GB/s reads and ~950MB/s writes.
Remember, that's non-deluxe. The Deluxe has higher iops still.

 

[blackened144]

if many people complain about one manufacturer like OCZ like we have seen here and on the web than it is reasonable to be cautious buying their products
one of the reason techs go to sites is to get reviews and opinions on products

my OCZ failed in like 7 months lol so yeah

Ive had 2 30gb Vertex 2s and 1 60gb Vertex3 die within a year. I also had my Corsair 60gb drive die within a year. I just got a Kingston SSDNow v300 128 for $90 though, and its been running like a champ for a whole week now. I just hope I can get at least another 51 weeks out of this one and get one good year from this drive.

 

[Beezy]

if many people complain about one manufacturer like OCZ like we have seen here and on the web than it is reasonable to be cautious buying their products
one of the reason techs go to sites is to get reviews and opinions on products

my OCZ failed in like 7 months lol so yeah

Ive had 2 30gb Vertex 2s and 1 60gb Vertex3 die within a year. I also had my Corsair 60gb drive die within a year. I just got a Kingston SSDNow v300 128 for $90 though, and its been running like a champ for a whole week now. I just hope I can get at least another 51 weeks out of this one and get one good year from this drive.

funny, i too have a kingston ssdnow in my new build and its been great so far.

 

[lsatenstein]

This is a question about using the SSD drive as a front end cache to a bank of hard-disk drives.

Is there yet commercial products that allow one to partition an SSD into a two uses. One part, as a storage drive, and the second as a cache for a bank of disks.

Linux has a bcache program that does just that, It allows the setting of the SSD as a cache. Backend the hard disk does get updated when the system is more idle. Some of the tuning redirects sequential IO directly to the hard drives, avoiding the filling up of the cache. Does such type of softwar exist for the Windows environment?

 

[king smp]

Read this it might help
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/smart-response-technology.html

 

[deV14nt]

I just picked up a 240 GB Seagate 600 for $130 for Christmas. At least Anand seemed to like it. Not sure why it didn't make this list, but all that counts is it did make it into my laptop. For $130.

 

[king smp]

I like the Seagate brand
I have three Seagate Hybrid drives two of which have been running in RAID 0 for about a year
Also have owned many Seagate mechanicals
Solid company

 

[littleleo]

Everyone's eyes drift to the biggest numbers, but what really matters is the price for performance and clearly the the Sandisk ultra plus 256gb and Samsung 840pro 128gb win out there. I'm glad I have a sandisk and unless you need the absolute best for the highest price, I don't see why you wouldn't go for highest performance per dollar.

I'm curious as to how the 840 Pro beats the 840/840 Evo. It's a lot pricier, but not a whole lot faster.

The 840 EVO is a TLC SSD, and the 840 PRO is a MLC, MLCs are faster and last longer then TLCs. TLCs can give you higher capacities at lower prices its a trade off. The new Samsung multi-core head helps the TLC performance and longevity.