Best SSDs For The Money: August 2012 (Archive)

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]onus[/nom]Reliability is my primary concern, so my quick and dirty rule for SSDs is "No Sandfarce, and no OCZ."I use a Crucial m4 mSATA (238GB formatted) as my system drive in my primary rig, and it is certainly fast enough, even though the mSATA slot is "only" 3Gb/s.My other rig uses a 256GB Samsung 830 on a 6Gb/s port. I can not tell any performance difference based on the drive; the two rigs are too different to compare them directly.[/citation]

3xx and 5xx series Intel SSD's use Sanforce controllers, we sell heaps of them with zero issues (better firmware/testing), but i do generally agree with your comment, except Crucial never worked with there drives before.

Samsung or Intel, no other brand for me (or my shop).

[citation][nom]baconeater[/nom]This is the one thing that gets me. Every site talks about OCZ because of their read/write numbers. I wouldn't buy any of their products. I would pay the premium for intel or crucial reliability. (which i do/have)[/citation]

Review sites are seen as high ranking honest sources of information, its the very opposite, that and when they review a piece of hardware they only have it for a few weeks, this shows ZERO reliability stats and information.

I can tell you one thing, my shop used to sell OCZ ssd's, ~60% failure rate in 1 month, ~80% in a year -- including intermittent issues (not just bricked drives) -- we looked after our customers and upgraded them all to Intel drives and havnt seen and problems since, we only stock and sell Intel and Samsung SSD's now.

[citation][nom]awood28211[/nom]I use: OCZ Vertex 4 as my system/boot drive. under 15 seconds from "Loading Windows" (Win7pro) to a responsive desktop and that includes typing in my password.[/citation]

Your one of the lucky ones, yours still works.

I have a general rule: a product should work out of the box, NOT after a firmware update or six
 
In my world there is no best SSD for the money when using a desktop for gaming. I'll take a 320-500GB Sata. Most of the PC games are bloated these days.

No for a laptop....different story.
 
Andrew Ku writes:
> Meanwhile, the new 840 Pro is less than 10% faster than the 830 in our
> trace-based storage benchmark.

Given that's the case, one would expect to find the 830 still available,
yet most places here (UK) no longer sell the 256GB model at all (I wish
they'd remove their pages, it messes up searching completely), and
those that do have jacked the price way up beyond what it was last
autumn. This is very annoying. Is the lack of supply deliberate? Or is
the choice not to sell them deliberate? I don't like the look of the 840
(slower than the 830 seems to me) and the 840 Pro is too expensive.
I'd like to buy two more 830 256GB units, but not at the current pricing;
it went as low as 130 UKP each here a few weeks ago, now it's more
like 175+ if one can find them.

IMO manufacturers and sellers are getting used to the typical price
points people are willing to pay, and they're making sure products don't
slip out of those ranges. By rights the 830 should still be available and
be priced under 100 UKP, but of course if it was then it would sell like
hot cakes and nobody would bother with the 840 Basic.

Grrr...

Ian.

 
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]... I have a general rule: a product should work out of the box, NOT after a firmware update or six[/citation]

That makes no sense. Do you apply the same logic to Windows? To games?
I very much doubt it. Windows has been full of mush for years but people
still use it despite the flaws; no manufacturer has launched an SSD without
having problems with early fw, including Intel & Samsung.

People keep harping on about OCZ, yet I have more than 30 OCZ units now
and not one of them has had a problem so far. I think most of the moaning
is from people who don't bother to update old fw, but that's something which
can affect a unit from any supplier.

Ian.

 
[citation][nom]kitekrazy1963[/nom]In my world there is no best SSD for the money when using a desktop for gaming. I'll take a 320-500GB Sata. ...[/citation]

Glad I don't live in your world. 😀

All I can say is you're missing out IMO. Definitely helps reduce stuttering re data loading,
and loads times are much better, ditto boot times. Older systems benefit greatly aswell
even if they're limited to SATA2. This evening I upgraded an ASUS P7P55 WS SC from
a 250GB Enterprise SATA to an OCZ 120GB Vertex2E, the speed difference is enormous.

If I could I'd buy a whole bunch more of the 120GB V2Es, they're ideal for SATA2 systems.

Ian.

 
OCZ certainly has had some turmoil over the last couple of years. Premature product launches, poor outsourcing and suppliers, spotty customer service, etc. However, after a fair amount of research on their company's activty the last few months it seems they are very serious about redeeming their reputation. They have sacked most of the old management (including the founding CEO) and re-staffed with some new managers with proven track records. On the engineering/supply side they have obtained Indilinx so now they have complete in-house control over the design and integration of their controller/firmware (which was the problem with their problematic Sandforce firmware SSDs). The only part they outsource now are the NAND flashe memory (which only Samsung and Intel have current capacity to manufacture themselves).

The new VP of sales and marketing has stated that OCZ is moving away from the budget SSD market and the new business/product model is going to be strictly high-performance/reliable drives. It seems they want to be the 'Ferrari' of SSD manufacturers for the future.

The very recently introduced Vector series SSDs are the first true complete OCZ engineered product (besides the NAND) and had an 18 month design/verification process. Considerably longer than the average product design/testing phase. The Vector series seems to have top-notch performance and so far there hasn't been a fiirmware revision (although it's still too new to be conclusiive).

Taking all this into consideration it seems they are doing all the right things to be a tier-1 SSD manufacturer again. After doing this research I was impressed enough to take the plunge and shell out $500 for their Vector 512GB SSD. I've had it for about a month and so far it's performed flawlessly and with very impressive speed. Actually, I'm so impressed with OCZ's recent direction I also decided to buy a bit of their stock (which due to their recent troubles is quite cheap). I have a good feeling they are going to accomplish their goal and be a big player in the SSD market with this new drive and corporate focus.

Of course It's much too early to know whether the Vector series will be reliable. It will take at least another 6-months to a year to have any tangile data on the products reliablilty, which will also determine OCZ's fate and whether they will redeem their reputation. It's possibler I may be back with a follow-up post in 6 months reporting my drive died, the company has gone bankrupt and feeling very foolish (crosses fingers), but at this point the signs are good, OCZ seems to be doing all the right things and I'm optimistic.
 
why is the samsung 840 250gb drive at the top of tier 1? that drive is terrible.
 
[citation][nom]computerdoc_67[/nom]O... Actually, I'm so impressed with OCZ's recent direction I also decided to buy a bit of their stock ...[/citation]

Hmm, have to say, be careful about owning stock in a company with whom you may have some kind
of emotional connection. All too easy to hold onto the shares longer than one should because one
'likes' the company, ie. beware of the 1st Rule, choosing to believe the company will improve just
because you want it to (thankyou Mr. Goodkind, hehe). Alas, making rational biz decisions is hard if
one is using the products or services from that company. I made that mistake with SGI. However,
the old saying is still true: never invest more than you can afford to lose and you should be ok no
matter what.

Ian.

 
[citation][nom]wanderlustx2[/nom]I run 2 x 256 GB of Vertex 4 and they've ran flawlessly for about 3 months now. I guess it's easy to regurgetate what you read from outdated articles referencing the original firmware.[/citation]

WOW 3 MONTHS???? I'm sorry, but no. You're an idiot for even thinking that's even a remote sign of reliability. I've tried the Vertex, Vertex 3, and the Vertex 4. All failed miserably after 11 months (Vertex lasting that long). That's not even a good timeframe for reliability either! My Corsair Force GT 120GB has been going strong for over a year now.

OCZ is an absolute garbage company (when it comes to SSDs) and your dribble about reading outdated articles and whatnot just proves how much you need to get the f*** off the internet.
 
[citation][nom]mapesdhs[/nom]That makes no sense. Do you apply the same logic to Windows? To games?I very much doubt it. Windows has been full of mush for years but peoplestill use it despite the flaws; no manufacturer has launched an SSD withouthaving problems with early fw, including Intel & Samsung.People keep harping on about OCZ, yet I have more than 30 OCZ units nowand not one of them has had a problem so far. I think most of the moaningis from people who don't bother to update old fw, but that's something whichcan affect a unit from any supplier.Ian.[/citation]

Is the firmware of an SSD made up of a few gb worth of code? Cudos to microsoft for making something that can work with billions of different combinations of hardware, survive power cuts, driver updates, idiots, power saving and more.

When SSD manafacturers cant get it right for a standard simple sata port, thats just poor.

I dont remember ever updating firmware on any other storage device before, WHY THE HELL SHOULD I START NOW.
 
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]Cudos to microsoft for making something that can work with billions of different combinations of hardware, ...[/citation]

Ah, so the billions in economic damage caused worldwide every year by Windows' pathetic security re virus problems, etc.,
is acceptable then? Again, a contradiction.

snowzsan said he tried various OCZ models and had them all fail. I have more than 2 dozen, not one of them has failed and
several are more than 3 years old & in use all the workding day, every day. YMMV. I have a RAID0 with eight MAX IOPS 120s,
no problems so far (2GB/sec, HP P400).

Simple fact is, all the manufacturers have had problems with SSD fw. People just choose not to scream quite so much
about it when the vendor isn't OCZ.

Ian.

 
[citation][nom]mapesdhs[/nom]Ah, so the billions in economic damage caused worldwide every year by Windows' pathetic security re virus problems, etc.,is acceptable then? Again, a contradiction.snowzsan said he tried various OCZ models and had them all fail. I have more than 2 dozen, not one of them has failed andseveral are more than 3 years old & in use all the workding day, every day. YMMV. I have a RAID0 with eight MAX IOPS 120s,no problems so far (2GB/sec, HP P400).Simple fact is, all the manufacturers have had problems with SSD fw. People just choose not to scream quite so muchabout it when the vendor isn't OCZ.Ian.[/citation]

Virus's are deliberate and usually dont brick the install, the only contradictions i see is in your thinking.

Think you need some real world experience sunshine 😉
 
apache_lives said:
I dont remember ever updating firmware on any other storage device before, WHY THE HELL SHOULD I START NOW.
Click to expand...
How do you feel about motherboard BIOS revisions? As for storage devices specifically, it's not uncommon at all for updates to the firmware; CD-Roms, HDDs, all types, and from all manufacturers. I've updated firmware on practically every piece of computer hardware where it was possible, and from every manufacturer over the last 25 years as a computer technician; it's not unusual or indicative that the manufacturer is incompetent. If that were so, from my own experience over the last three decades, there wouldn't be a single company in the world of computing today that could be trusted.

There's the old saying, "Once bitten, twice shy"; I've had horrible experience with Ultra PSUs for example, i've had to replace dozens of them prematurely and would never use one again. However, there are other people that have used them for years with good result and would swear by them. That seems to be the case with a lot of computer hardware.
 
[citation][nom]mapesdhs[/nom]Hmm, have to say, be careful about owning stock in a company with whom you may have some kindof emotional connection. All too easy to hold onto the shares longer than one should because one'likes' the company ...[/citation]

Well, I wouldn't quite qualify myself as "emotionally" attached to OCZ; my decision to invest was based on tangible corporate activity which is the basis of a great deal of investing. My "feeling" as I descibed it, was based on that evidence. However, investing is always a gamble, no matter what hard evidence it's based on, and your advice to not become emotionally attached to a company is sage indeed.

I made a similar investment back in 1994 when John Sculley left Apple and Steve Jobs again became the CEO. At that time everyone was predicting the doom of Apple Corporation in the mid-90s. I saw with Apple a similar corporate enthusiasm to excel under Jobs management, coupled with vendor consolidation and new products as I do with OCZ. I held on to that stock for 10 years and it worked out well in the end. Sometime intuition coupled with corporate research can pay off, big time. :)
 
I'm sure this was already pointed out, but not every computer runs windows, and some computers that do run windows are just clients on a network and need minimal local storage, but should run the OS + a few apps really fast.

I'm actually waiting for a 32GB drive that I can buy for say $20. Would be perfect for my server (currently running on an 8GB CF Card) or my HTPC (currently running on a 60GB SSD, but I'd rather have that in my laptop and put a 32GB SSD in there for dirt cheap).

Anyways, ADATA is getting close in that department with a 32GB SSD SP600. Also, the price range you list is really for the 64GB SP600. The SP900 is much closer to your $80 SSD.
 
not on the charts but it's at microcenter and this can be purchased online unlike intel cpu's

Plextor
M5s PX-256M5S 256GB SATA 6.0Gb/s 2.5" Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) with Marvel 88SS9174 controller $169.99 Usually ships in 1-3 business days.
http://www.microcenter.com/product/398906/M5s_PX-256M5S_256GB_SATA_60Gb-s_25_Internal_Solid_State_Drive_(SSD)_with_Marvel_88SS9174_controller
Specifications
Features Fully supporting the latest generation of the SATAII / 6Gbps standard, with up to 510 MB/s transfer rate. The Marvel, 88SS9174 controller chip delivers extensive products life, data security, and stability, and also has excellent read-write performance with both compressible and non-compressible data making it the best choice on the SSD market.
Color Silver
Form Factor 2.5"
Interface SATA 6.0Gb/s
Architecture Multi Level Cell
Capacity 256GB
Controller Marvell
Cache 512MB DDR3
Read Speed Up to 520 MB/s
Write Speed Up to 390 MB/s
Average Seek Time < 1ms
Random Write 4K Up to 70,000 IOPS
Electrical Specifications
Power Usage - Read/Write 2.8 Watts
Power Usage - Idle 0.7 Watts
Environmental Specifications
MTBF 1,500,000 Hours
Shock Resistance 1,500G, 1ms
Max Vibration Resistance 7 ~ 800Hz
Vibration Resistance - Operating 2.17Grms
Temperature - Operating (°C) 0 to 70 Degrees Celsius
Temperature - Non-Operating (°C) -20 to 85 Degrees Celsius
Maximum Altitude - Operating 3,048 m (up to 10,000 ft.)
Maximum Altitude - Non-Operating 12,192 m (up to 40,000 ft.)
System Requirement
Supported Windows Operating Systems Microsoft Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8
Supported Macintosh Operating Systems Mac OS X or later
Other Supported Operating Systems Linux
Physical Specifications
2.5" Drive Height Notes This drive is not compatible with all systems or enclosures. Please refer to your specific system specifications to verify maximum allowable drive height before attempting to install.
Depth 3.9"
Height 9.5mm
Weight 2.54 oz
Width 2.75"
What's in the Box
What's in the Box M5s PX-256M5S 256GB SATA 6.0Gb/s 2.5" Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) with Marvel 88SS9174 controller
Manufacturer Warranty
Manufacturer Warranty 5 Year Limited Warranty
Parts 5 year
Labor 5 year
 
[citation][nom]computerdoc_67[/nom]
apache_lives said:
I dont remember ever updating firmware on any other storage device before, WHY THE HELL SHOULD I START NOW.
Click to expand...
How do you feel about motherboard BIOS revisions? As for storage devices specifically, it's not uncommon at all for updates to the firmware; CD-Roms, HDDs, all types, and from all manufacturers. I've updated firmware on practically every piece of computer hardware where it was possible, and from every manufacturer over the last 25 years as a computer technician; it's not unusual or indicative that the manufacturer is incompetent. If that were so, from my own experience over the last three decades, there wouldn't be a single company in the world of computing today that could be trusted.There's the old saying, "Once bitten, twice shy"; I've had horrible experience with Ultra PSUs for example, i've had to replace dozens of them prematurely and would never use one again. However, there are other people that have used them for years with good result and would swear by them. That seems to be the case with a lot of computer hardware.[/citation]

I dont like it when hundreds of my loyal clients complain that there computer is faster but unreliable, im going off the sheer fact that as soon as all the cheap nasty SSD's were replaced with Intel's they were 100%, i tried the firmware updates and at first they seemed to work but after a few clients making repeat trips etc from that point i thought "f*** this, no more"

For the OCZ problem (most were from OCZ, some from gskil and a few corsairs) i actually spoke to the OCZ rep for the region, he said they were aware of "a few" faulty units and that an updated revision of the drives was coming but by then i wasnt interested, i got an authorization for credit with my supplier thanks to OCZ and i sent them all back, some were even ~6 months old! I liked the rep at least he wasn't giving me BS.

When you buy normal mechanical drives you NEVER have to update the firmware for them to actually work (exception seagate 10 series), motherboard BIOS's sure thats for newer processors and fixed for various hardware combinations, but an SSD only ever has to connect to a universally standard sata port, every other old school mechanical hard disk manafacturer gets it right, Intel gets it right but its so hit and miss "PLUG AND PRAY" with other SSD's.

I know what your saying but i know what my customers are saying, there all happy now.
 
My Win 7 build from Spring 2012 would rarely enter Windows sleep mode. I was never sure if it was the Crucial M4 256GB, maybe the new UEFI MB, or something else entirely. So I cloned the M4 to an older WD mechanical drive. Voila, all of a sudden sleep mode works 100%

Crucial's firmware support site now admits to having problems with the new UEFI motherboards, and I'm unable to upgrade the firmware. It's not me, a lot of folks are out of luck with Crucial support.

I'll replace the M4 with a Samsung 840 Pro, but not til they go on sale, which I'm sure they will.

A pox on Crucial and the ill-supported M4 SSD.

keywords: Crucial SSD bad support, Windows problems, sleep problems Crucial M4, Crucial M4 SSD problems, Crucial SSD firmware won't update
 
[citation][nom]hinduclient[/nom]My Win 7 build from Spring 2012 would rarely enter Windows sleep mode. I was never sure if it was the Crucial M4 256GB, maybe the new UEFI MB, or something else entirely. So I cloned the M4 to an older WD mechanical drive. Voila, all of a sudden sleep mode works 100%Crucial's firmware support site now admits to having problems with the new UEFI motherboards, and I'm unable to upgrade the firmware. It's not me, a lot of folks are out of luck with Crucial support.I'll replace the M4 with a Samsung 840 Pro, but not til they go on sale, which I'm sure they will.A pox on Crucial and the ill-supported M4 SSD.keywords: Crucial SSD bad support, Windows problems, sleep problems Crucial M4, Crucial M4 SSD problems, Crucial SSD firmware won't update[/citation]

That seems overly harsh to Crucial considering that it's merely having a minor issue with motherboards that have a newer BIOS. The issue will probably be fixed in a firmware update and to be fair, not only were such BIOS' not particularly common when the M4 came out quite a while ago now, but it's probably one of the only issues that the M4 ever had. To call it ill-supported over one minor issue is an extreme exaggeration.

Also, even on sale, it's unlikely that you'll find Samsung 840 Pro models with a decent price anytime soon.
 
"but that ignores the ever-present capacity issue that mobile users face ever-presently" grammar error. thanks for the roundup
 
We have a low technology-knowledgeable person in our company that has been reading information regarding SSDs on your website. He is now pushing to have all of our working 7200 rpm hard drives replaced by the Samsung 840 Pro SSD. We're recommending the Kingston V300 or the Intel 520 series.

Our environment contains about 90 Duo2 Core computers, with 4Gb memory, business-class video. The users run Word, some Excel, Outlook and a law program.

Our thoughts is that our users would not be able to discern the difference in performance between the Samsung and Kingston/Intel given the type of programs that they run. The computers are on 24/7 and other than the low technology-knowledgeable person who apparently restarts his computer quite often because he's raving about how quick his computer starts up, most people rarely restart their computer.

Since there's a significant price difference we're suggesting in purchasing the Kingston or Intel and saving money instead of the Samsung.

Question....
Given our environment, do you think there's any significant performance difference that our users would be able to notice? Do you think there's any savings in time, again for the programs that are used?

Thanks for your help!
 
[citation][nom]concernedamerica[/nom]We have a low technology-knowledgeable person in our company that has been reading information regarding SSDs on your website. He is now pushing to have all of our working 7200 rpm hard drives replaced by the Samsung 840 Pro SSD. We're recommending the Kingston V300 or the Intel 520 series.Our environment contains about 90 Duo2 Core computers, with 4Gb memory, business-class video. The users run Word, some Excel, Outlook and a law program.Our thoughts is that our users would not be able to discern the difference in performance between the Samsung and Kingston/Intel given the type of programs that they run. The computers are on 24/7 and other than the low technology-knowledgeable person who apparently restarts his computer quite often because he's raving about how quick his computer starts up, most people rarely restart their computer.Since there's a significant price difference we're suggesting in purchasing the Kingston or Intel and saving money instead of the Samsung.Question....Given our environment, do you think there's any significant performance difference that our users would be able to notice? Do you think there's any savings in time, again for the programs that are used?Thanks for your help![/citation]

If it's just basic office work, then you could easily get an eve nslower SSD such as a Crucial M4 without noticing any performance issues. Besides, Even if it Samsung 840 Pro was noticeably better, I don't think that it'd matter much if your company's employees are already content with old hard drives. Going from those to even a somewhat slow SSD such as M4, Agility 4, or Samsung 840 (the non-pro version) will already be a huge improvement in storage performance.

More directly relevant to your questions, no, I don't see there being any time saved by going with the more expensive SSDs instead of cheaper SSDs given the programs that you stated. I'm not sure if you'll save enough time for even upgrading to cheap SSDs from the hard drives to be worth the cost, granted that would definitely be a noticeable performance difference.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]More directly relevant to your questions, no, I don't see there being any time saved by going with the more expensive SSDs instead of cheaper SSDs given the programs that you stated. I'm not sure if you'll save enough time for even upgrading to cheap SSDs from the hard drives to be worth the cost, granted that would definitely be a noticeable performance difference.[/citation]

That was my assessment as well. Given the computing environment 'concernedamerica' describes (mainly running Excel, Word, Outlook, etc) there really would be no justifiable reason to invest in comparatively expensive SSD storage technology at all. You wouldn't see any discernible advantage running those programs on an SSD over a 7200rpm mechanical HDD as there aren't extensive reading/writing data operations with them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom