Best SSDs For The Money: August 2012 (Archive)

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
For 128 and 1TB sizes, no contest, I agree with Samsung being better. Write performance of 850 PRO totally beats the Budget MX100 to death, and I'd gladly pay $160 extra for 7 years of extended warranty on a 1TB SSD.

However, due to my needs (I game, and I tend to store games with long loading times onto SSD's whenever possible, although 'long' here is subjective), I value capacity higher than reliability, since I know I won't be storing important data on those SSD's, so it won't hurt if several years down the line they die, I have gotten my value out of them.

If I were to use the SSDs to store data of any kind of importance (such as backups), or if I need the durability (such as for a system drive) 850 Pro would be my choice, easily. The 10 year warranty is too difficult to pass up, not by the warranty itself, but as a measure of their level of confidence in their SSD life.
 
Samsung wins on performance - but can you really feel how much faster it is, compared to a similar-size Crucial drive? Outside of intensive use like high-performance database access or a big lookup through a huge programming project's files where it MIGHT gain you a couple seconds, I personally don't feel like paying the premium over Crucial drives. Moreover, the recent Samsung 840 woes don't inspire confidence in that brand.
 
I'm still rocking my OCZ Vertex 4 256GB, which clearly wasn't enough space. Did OCZ die in the SSD field. Kind of saddens me. Maybe in a year the price may drop on those 850 pro's, looking to pick up two 1TB's for my next PC build.
 
The 256gb Samsung 850 pro cost 169 dollars compared to the 250gb Samsung 840 evo that cost 149 dollars. Doesn't make sense why anyone would get the 250gb 840 evo version when you can get better performance for just 20 dollars more with the 256gb 850 pro version.
 
Look at warranties:
Samsung 840 EVO and Crucial MX100 : 3years
Samsung 850Pro :10years
That's insanely high. And you don't have to worry about a company like Samsung going out of business.

850Pro is the new king.
 
With a same endurance cycle 850Pro goes down to 6 years which is still very nice. With a Crucial how ever you get not so top of the pops two cell nand that is certainly more durable than three cell nand on EVO series. When it comes to performance Samsung rules but only on Windows. The performance is related to software used with it. When it comes to Linux or OSX Crucial is better choice as it's performance is not related to additional software optimizations but straight out of the box. M550 with 1TB capacity are really good choice for a workstations productivity work plates especially if it's not Windows tied.
 


Toshiba bought OCZ. They're still making newer models, but the pricing hasn't ajdusted yet to sensible levels.
Still, if you like OCZ (I do), try bagging a Vector on eBay. I won a new 512GB for an excellent price (cost less
than a new 840 Pro 256GB), still very competitive for performance (check the charts). I'd happily still use the
Vertex4, but alas they're long gone. I've not tested the ARC yet, but it doesn't look as good as the old Vector.

Atm my choice for performance/reliability would be the 840 Pro or 850 Pro, while for capacity it'd be the EVO.
I just don't trust the MX100/M5x0 budget models.

Ian.

 
The hard drives cost as it is. Some cost more to develop, some less, the other is branding. What we see here is an attempt to make the furure of a disk more capable than it is, it is just nand gates with overcost to me. Storage device should be traditionally with hdd disks than the other way around , because ssd makes don't supply their disk into their laptops. Viva la fevga.
 
It feels really good seeing the 840 pro continue to sit at the top of the charts. I bought mine at $250 (256GB) and even though the cost has decreased, I still feel like I got a great deal. Hardware that continues to be the best.

 


That Samsung only rules on Windows is simply not true. Even if you don't have RapidWrite or any of the other optimizations, the Samsung 850 Pro still is FASTER than the Crucial MX series. You can run it under Linux or any other OS. In addition, the Sandisk Extreme Pro is also faster than the Crucial MX line.

The Crucial MX is the better choice if you're looking for the best price, but it certainly is NOT the performance leader, whether you're running Linux, Windows, or whatever.
 
I really see no reason to purchase an 850 Pro vs. the MX100. The 850's performance is measurably better, but probably not noticeable for most users, and certainly not at the 512GB capacity. The warranty on the 850 does seem attractive, but the long-term reliability is still unknown, so your data is not necessarily any safer, and you really should consider that in 5 years or less, the 80%-90% premium you pay now for the 850 Pro over the MX100 will very likely pay for a replacement drive that will be higher performing or higher capacity, or both.
 
Not sure if this is significant, but on the Table on the top of the first page, it listed M550 1TB as $446.99, but on the box describing the M550 as budget buy, it is listed as $530.99...

Regardless, the performance difference between MX100 and 850 pro series at 128 (especially) and 256 would probably be noticeable to an average layman, but at 512 GB they are within a hair's breadth of each other (2% write, 4% read), so most likely an average layman wouldn't notice it (4% off a few seconds is still a few seconds). You could almost get two MX100 512's against a single 850 Pro.
 
Its faster than EVO & not so far behind PRO. NEVER CLAIMED that it's a performance leader on other OSes for that you would need Toshiba nand with a same controller.
 


Dude, you claimed Samsung was only faster in Windows, and that Crucial would be better in other OSes. Let me quote you again:

"When it comes to Linux or OSX Crucial is better choice as it's performance is not related to additional software optimizations but straight out of the box. "

You are plainly incorrect, as so many websites who have tested SSDs can attest. The Samsung 850 Pro is faster, whether in Linux or any other OS; it doesn't need ANY optimization to be faster. I also said the Sandisk Extreme series is faster as well, so I'm not blindly touting Samsung. You can make a point (which you didn't) of the Crucial drives being a better deal in price, but don't try to say the Samsung can only be faster in Windows.
 


Yes, it is faster, although whether it's "much faster" is dependent upon your needs. The 850 Pro has two things going for it that the 840 Pro doesn't:

1) It is much better in performance consistency
2) it has much higher endurance rating due to the V-NAND.

Edit: The higher endurance also lead to a higher warranty as well, which is a plus.
 
I meant compered to EVO lol. You don't compare budget option with performance one... I didn't pointed that up that straight & it's my fault but somehow I did mean in global order in sentence how that much is logical... you must admit that power failure protection on them makes them good even for serious server work & they are in budget category.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom