Best SSDs For The Money: May 2011

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

acku

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2010
559
0
18,980
[citation][nom]JohnnyLucky[/nom]Looks like the best ssd for $180.00 single drive configuration is off too. You must be using MRSP instead of street or sale prices for the Kingston SSDNow V+ 100 96GB SATA II ssd.[/citation]

We don't include mail-in rebates. Sale prices are included.
 
Z

ZeroLag

Distinguished
May 19, 2011
5
0
18,510
I'm actually disappointed in the lack of effort in this article. Even as a new system builder, my 2 month research into SSD performance easily allows me the knowledge of measuring SSD true performance.

You measure it in 4kb random read/write and 4k sequential read/write. Window 7 is natively read in these sectors. If you compare these SSDs to 4k performance/"current" market price, then you're actually giving us consumers a viable way to compare SSDs. This article just seems to list prices of SSDs without a mention of performance. Also, Max Write and Max Read are not ways to measure SSDs. Rarely do these SSDs function at that capacity.

I love Tom's Hardware. Let's keep the standards high.

This article = Epic Fail
 
G

Guest

Guest
I'd say any of the 60-64 GB SSDs with the Sandforce 1200 series controllers are the hot items for boot drives. They can almost always be had for around $100 with a mail in rebate, and sometimes for less. These are actually more than large enough for almost anyone's boot drive and have loads of room left for all of your personal data-with some of your games to boot!

Patriot, OCX, Vertex and a host of others meet these criteria.
 
nitrium

nitrium

Distinguished
Jul 27, 2009
1,552
99
20,590
The most important metric for day to day usage is the 4kb read/write performance at queue depth 1 (QD 1). Windows 7 averages QD 1.04 when booting/loading games and apps etc. It only rarely goes above a QD of 1, and VERY rarely above QD 5. Surprise, surprise, the performance of almost every SSD at QD 1 is near enough the same (in fact some 1st gen drives outperform "higher spec" 3rd gen drives at QD 1!!!). There is not much (if any) performance to be gained for typical users getting high-end SSDs. For the vast majority of users, the best advice is to get the cheapest per GB drive you can get. Ignore synthetic benchmarks (or at least focus only on QD 1 performance).
 
T

twile

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2006
177
0
18,680
Friendly suggestion to Tom's. Instead of going through and listing off the suggested drive for each dollar range, make a chart instead. Don't just tell us the recommended drive for each range, go through the different primary criteria--capacity, performance, and reliability at the least--and let users figure out what's most important to them. For example, I don't care much about reliability because my data isn't mission-critical and I have it backed up nightly, so if a drive dies then I just do an Advance RMA and use another system for a few days.
 
P

ProDigit10

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2010
585
1
18,980
All these superspeeds and super iops are nice, but I wonder when they will start manufacturing affordable SSD's with a good capacity?

I'm thinking in the line of sub $100, for 64GB. If they could only trade off some of the speed, to get the cost down!
Just as long as it uses less power than a harddrive, and has higher iops (which would result in faster program and OS boot times), I'd be happy!
 
schwizer

schwizer

Distinguished
Jan 14, 2010
121
0
18,690
jtt283 05/31/2011 2:32 PM
I've had a couple of SSDs fail, the second after only two months of office-type use, so I'd like to see more information on reliability as it becomes available.
Click to expand...

Were they OCZ Vertex 2 drives?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Had one ocz drive fail, and 3 crucial c300 drives fail. so far owned 6 intel ssd's and 0 failures.
 
Onus

Onus

Titan
Jan 27, 2006
37,037
12
89,965
No, they were not OCZ. The first was a two-year old Crucial, and the second was a two-month old AData. The deaths were "different," in that it was easy to get the data off the Crucial, but not the AData. I finally managed to get most of it off, but the AData flash utility can't even see the drive, and it drops out in Windows after a limited number of operations too.
 
K

Kisakuku

Distinguished
Jan 18, 2011
13
0
18,510
However, OCZ recently made a play to lock in its I/O performance leadership with a Max IOPS edition of the Vertex 3. The only difference between this drive and the regular Vertex 3 is its firmware.
Click to expand...

Vertex 3 and Vertex 3 Max IOPS have identical firmware. It's the NAND (25nm Micron MLC NAND in Vertex 3, 32nm Toshiba Toggle Mode MLC NAND in Vertex 3 Max IOPS) that differentiates the two.
 
sanityvoid

sanityvoid

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2008
36
0
18,530
[citation][nom]ZeroLag[/nom]I'm actually disappointed in the lack of effort in this article. Even as a new system builder, my 2 month research into SSD performance easily allows me the knowledge of measuring SSD true performance. You measure it in 4kb random read/write and 4k sequential read/write. Window 7 is natively read in these sectors. If you compare these SSDs to 4k performance/"current" market price, then you're actually giving us consumers a viable way to compare SSDs. This article just seems to list prices of SSDs without a mention of performance. Also, Max Write and Max Read are not ways to measure SSDs. Rarely do these SSDs function at that capacity. I love Tom's Hardware. Let's keep the standards high. This article = Epic Fail[/citation]

I agree with this comment. Reading Anandtech.com and you will find the random read/write, mentioned above, is much more important than the metric you have provided in the article.

Please incorporate random read/write into the next month's article.

Buying the cheapest GB/$ is not the way to go. Reliability and other metrics must factor in.
 
dgingeri

dgingeri

Distinguished
Dec 4, 2009
2,123
1
20,460
I went with 2X Vertex 2 120GB drives in RAID 0 for my SSD setup. It works beautifully. ~400MB/s transfer rates where there is data even after 6 months of use. (The unused portions of the drives show 535MB/s, but that's kind of a trick of the Sandforce controller because it is transferring nothing but 0's.) Since these drives are going for $200 each, that's a better performing setup, with the same capacity, than a single 240GB Agility 3.
 
avi0013

avi0013

Distinguished
May 15, 2011
21
0
18,510
For around 320 you can get a OCZ Vertex 3 Series – MAX IOPS Edition VTX3MI-25SAT3-120G; wouldn't that be better than the 120 GB SSD 510?
 
R

rajetomhw

Distinguished
May 31, 2011
1
0
18,510
First review of new Corsair Force 3, now online
http://www.kitguru.net/components/ssd-drives/zardon/corsair-force-3-120gb-ssd-review/

It shows performance comparable to OCZ Agility 3. The Vertex 3´s retain their crown. But prices and performance give the Force 3 + Agility 3 and edge over Crucials M4.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom