Best SSDs For The Money: May 2012

[acku]

Which 120g SSD is better to go with Intel's i7 3770 and Gigabytes z77 UD5???

I was considering Intel's 520 or Mushkin Chronos Deluxe? I was under the impression that only Intel's SSD's would do that special cache thingy?

Personally, if the price was right, I'd take the Chronos Deluxe.

 

[colson79]

[citation][nom]Helping Hand[/nom]Remember that with Raid 0 you lose TRIM functionality and performance will degrade overtime.[/citation]

This depends on the type of drive you are using. The Sandforce based drives have been shown not to degrade even without trim because they have really good garbage collection built into the controllers.

 

[acku]

[citation][nom]colson79[/nom]This depends on the type of drive you are using. The Sandforce based drives have been shown not to degrade even without trim because they have really good garbage collection built into the controllers.[/citation]
Colson79 you hit the nail on the head. If you're going to do RAID, make sure it's SF, cause it does mostly foreground GC. Everything else I wouldn't touch for RAID until TRIM support becomes available.

 

[Guest]

The Muskin Chronos 120 GB is 99.95 at newegg with free shipping. Just purchased two of them.

 

[hmp_goose]

I'm pleased as punch to have this article once a month, but I'm still confused as to why there's a second recommendation at that same size(s) as the Chronos Deluxe, especially when they cost way more. Is the Samsung 830 there for it's power consumption? Is the speed advantage on incompressibles really worth ~$100-something?

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]hmp_goose[/nom]I'm pleased as punch to have this article once a month, but I'm still confused as to why there's a second recommendation at that same size(s) as the Chronos Deluxe, especially when they cost way more. Is the Samsung 830 there for it's power consumption? Is the speed advantage on incompressibles really worth ~$100-something?[/citation]

Considering that the speed in incompressible data throughput can be more than double and that a lot of (perhaps most) data is incompressible or not very compressible, it is very important.

For mobile computers, the 830's power usage advantage can also be important. However, with desktops, SSDs just don't use enough power to make a noticeable difference in the electric bill.

 

[jaquith]

Respectfully disagree. On average, your personal machine is going to transfer more sequential data than you would random (remember a single 128 KB sequential transfer is 32x bigger than a single 4 KB random one). Even if it's weighed compensated, there tends to be more sequential transfers. We've covered this several times in the past with our trace articles. Second, "IOPS" ties in with randoms (4 KB), so I'm not sure what you mean by separating them.

As to reliablity, while I believe that is the single most important trait moving forward (read http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-reliability-failure-rate,2923.html), there's no way to quantify it. A lot of the problems are vendor specific not tied to one controller. SandForce BSODs for example were related to power, and each SF partner uses its own power circuity design. Give me a few thousand SSDs of each model, a datacenter, and a couple of years, and I'll have some numbers for you. Everything at the moment is ancetodal. Newegg/Amazon reviews, for example, are a good resource, but they hardly count as a good statistical sample. From a purely experimental standpoint, there's too much bias. You could make the argument that certain brands are likely to overstate reliablity and others understate. Everyone there selects they have a high tech knowledge in Newegg reviews, which lends more weight to opinion. But seriously, who's going to select beginner (aka "I'm a newbie")? ;p

If you have a suggestion on a specific weighed scoring system, feel free to share it. Not sure what you'd exactly envisioning.
/.../
Cheers,
Andrew Ku

NTFS is 4KB until you reach >16TB and most folks don't copy large files SSD to SSD (unless you're benchmark happy). Instead, the real world is ODD or HDD back and forth to the SSD. Further, the SSD's 'use' is primarily for the OS, Applications (executable's), some data/working files and in 4KB. I wasn't separating IOPS and 4KB other than both are more representative of the SSD's performance than '525 MB/s & 500 MB/s' cherry picked ATTO measured and more irrelevant values.

I thought this video would be humorous since you mentioned NewEgg (scrub to 7:05) or click the link.
[flash=640,480]http://www.youtube.com/v/HFtJeVcFI2I#t=436s[/flash]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=HFtJeVcFI2I#t=436s

Further, if reliability is so 'ancetodal' then don't push Intel and Samsung unless you have data for ALL SSD's in the review -- I've read the other TH articles. AnandTech had a nice article on SSD lifespan and similar data can be extrapolated to consumer using P/E Cycles; see http://www.anandtech.com/show/5518/a-look-at-enterprise-performance-of-intel-ssds/1

Simple examples of a weighted scale:
Warranty 5 years (10), 3 years (5) and so on.
Cost per GB $0.50/GB (10), $0.75/GB (5) and so on.
Speed perform several bench marks, look for the median (5)

I wish 'new' was always best, I very rarely look at NewEgg's reviews and I'm certain we could write a book from folks with agendas to total noobs. Example, the newest OCZ Vertex 4 firmware -- it's a destructive update (your data i.e OS is toast). So with a little research important information comes to light. Pricing, I 'get' prices change like the direction of the wind and there are price watching sites maybe take a few minutes and look them up -- and state as of 9:00AM PST 5/29/12 the prices are $...for the $/GB and your category. It seems like you have your favorites -- ditto here -- Intel & Samsung. However, for most folks the $/GB is very high ... again a weighted scale.

Buying an SSD is a PITA -- TH can help with this with a little additional effort.

 

[wololo]

Here's a good resource if you're planning to buy a SSD: http://www.ssdtracker.com/

This website tracks the daily prices of SSD to bring you the best value for money drives on the market.

Currently the #1 ranked drive is the currently priced at $95.99 or $0.80 per gigabyte

Hope that helps

 

[wololo]

Here's a good resource if you're planning to buy a SSD:

http://ww.ssdtracker.com

This website tracks the daily prices of SSD to bring you the best value for money drives on the market.

Currently the drive is the currently priced at $95.99 or $0.80 per gigabyte

http://www.ssdtracker.com/184/mushkin-chronos-120-gb-sata-6-0-gb-s-2-5-inch-solid-state-drive/

Hope that helps

 

[mesab66]

Tom's - what about, for completeness, including a few PCI-E SSD's? Of course, you are paying for the very significant speed increases over any SATA based SSD (and there are limited models) - but it will make the reader aware of this other form that, particularly for specific applications, the reader may need covered.

Just an idea - you do include higher end $1000 gfx cards (e.g.690) after all.

 

[DjEaZy]

[citation][nom]iamtheking123[/nom]"But if you look at performance over an entire month, you will find the 830 to be a faster performer"Still going to do 4x SSD's in raid 0 in my next build for the e-peen.[/citation]
... is the RevoDrive not more effective as 4x Raid 0??

 

[jaquith]

[citation][nom]DjEaZy[/nom]... is the RevoDrive not more effective as 4x Raid 0??[/citation]The RevoDrive's are all RAID 0 internally, and no doubt a much more reliable RAID. Keeping up with the MOBO compatibility of a RevoDrive is darn near impossible.

 

[mutex7]

Could TH do one SSD comparison run on SATA II controllers before the test becomes meaningless? Since the article is titled "Best SSDs for the Money" and many people are still running SATA II (especially in laptops) wouldn't this be valuable information for a lot of people?

...Not to mention how the intelppm.sys / turboboost issue impacts performance for many laptop owners rendering the test results here invalid for them.

 

[glenster]

For fast and less expensive, see the new Hexus review of the SanDisk Extreme SSD 240GB--it sounds like it should be added to these results.

 

[gmarsack]

I've bought 2 OCZ Agility 3 120GB and also a 90GB SSD and they work great for laptops! I just ordered another 120 GB from NewEgg today for $93 due to a $15 coupon code. Can't beat that!

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]mutex7[/nom]Could TH do one SSD comparison run on SATA II controllers before the test becomes meaningless? Since the article is titled "Best SSDs for the Money" and many people are still running SATA II (especially in laptops) wouldn't this be valuable information for a lot of people?...Not to mention how the intelppm.sys / turboboost issue impacts performance for many laptop owners rendering the test results here invalid for them.[/citation]

SATA3/SATA2 doesn't make much of a noticeable difference for most usage, except for specific situations. Drives that are the fastest on SATA3 will still be the fastest on SATA2, especially with random throughput which is usually far less likely to break 300MB/s than sequential throughput.

Also, there are work-arounds to improve that problem, even if they don't fix it completely:
http://www.storagereview.com/how_improve_low_ssd_performance_intel_series_5_chipset_environments

They're not perfect solutions, but some of them help.

 

[mutex7]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]SATA3/SATA2 doesn't make much of a noticeable difference for most usage, except for specific situations. Drives that are the fastest on SATA3 will still be the fastest on SATA2, especially with random throughput which is usually far less likely to break 300MB/s than sequential throughput.Also, there are work-arounds to improve that problem, even if they don't fix it completely:http://www.storagereview.com/how_i [...] vironmentsThey're not perfect solutions, but some of them help.[/citation]

My only point is that since this article is about price/performance a cheaper SATA II SSD might be a better buy for some people with SATA II controllers. I don't know this for a fact but I would like to see the numbers.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]mutex7[/nom]My only point is that since this article is about price/performance a cheaper SATA II SSD might be a better buy for some people with SATA II controllers. I don't know this for a fact but I would like to see the numbers.[/citation]

The only newish SATAII SSDs that I can think of would be the Intel 310 series and they suck compared to any decent SATAIII SSD, even compared to the other SSDs when confined to a SATAII controller. All of the new, high performance drives are SATAIII compatible, so they're usually the only reasonable choices because even on a SATAII controller, they fly past the top SATAII SSDs.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Well I'm sure glad you have categories for $110, $120 and $130 because I certainly would never consider spending an extra $10 for the $120 model despite the fact that its much faster and has extended long life premium toshiba flash.

Could ya stop making extra categories just a few bucks apart so every advertiser gets a "win" ?

 

[JackNaylorPE]

[citation][nom]samuelspark[/nom]Mushkin Enhanced Chronos has sychronous flash and offers much better performance, comparable to the Vertex 3.[/citation]

The Mushkin Enhanced Chronos Deluxe uses the same premium toshiba extended life toggle mode flash as the Vertex 3 Max IOPS. The Vertex 3 and the Enhanced Chronos do not.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4328/mushkin_chronos_deluxe_120gb_solid_state_drive_review/index.html

Today we are looking at the stepped up Chronos Deluxe model that uses the same SandForce SF-2281, but pairs it with premium 3Xnm Toshiba Toggle Mode Flash. To date there are very few companies offering SSDs with Toshiba Toggle flash. We've already seen the Patriot Wildfire, OWC Mercury Extreme Pro 6G (latest revision) and OCZ Vertex 3 Max IOPS, but now it's time to see what the Chronos Deluxe has to offer.

 

[Guest]

Where is OWC's mercury Extreme?

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]ganzonomy[/nom]Where is OWC's mercury Extreme?[/citation]

I think that the OWC Mercury Extreme is a second gen SandForce drive with Synchronous NAND, so unless I'm wrong, that would put 240GB models in the second tier and 120GB models in the fifth tier.

 

[acku]

NTFS is 4KB until you reach >16TB and most folks don't copy large files SSD to SSD (unless you're benchmark happy). Instead, the real world is ODD or HDD back and forth to the SSD. Further, the SSD's 'use' is primarily for the OS, Applications (executable's), some data/working files and in 4KB. I wasn't separating IOPS and 4KB other than both are more representative of the SSD's performance than '525 MB/s & 500 MB/s' cherry picked ATTO measured and more irrelevant values.

I thought this video would be humorous since you mentioned NewEgg (scrub to 7:05) or click the link.
[flash=640,480]http://www.youtube.com/v/HFtJeVcFI2I#t=436s[/flash]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=HFtJeVcFI2I#t=436s

Further, if reliability is so 'ancetodal' then don't push Intel and Samsung unless you have data for ALL SSD's in the review -- I've read the other TH articles. AnandTech had a nice article on SSD lifespan and similar data can be extrapolated to consumer using P/E Cycles; see http://www.anandtech.com/show/5518/a-look-at-enterprise-performance-of-intel-ssds/1

Simple examples of a weighted scale:
Warranty 5 years (10), 3 years (5) and so on.
Cost per GB $0.50/GB (10), $0.75/GB (5) and so on.
Speed perform several bench marks, look for the median (5)

I wish 'new' was always best, I very rarely look at NewEgg's reviews and I'm certain we could write a book from folks with agendas to total noobs. Example, the newest OCZ Vertex 4 firmware -- it's a destructive update (your data i.e OS is toast). So with a little research important information comes to light. Pricing, I 'get' prices change like the direction of the wind and there are price watching sites maybe take a few minutes and look them up -- and state as of 9:00AM PST 5/29/12 the prices are $...for the $/GB and your category. It seems like you have your favorites -- ditto here -- Intel & Samsung. However, for most folks the $/GB is very high ... again a weighted scale.

Buying an SSD is a PITA -- TH can help with this with a little additional effort.

SSD Lifespan doesn't = reliablity. Two seperate things. And we did cover that multiple times.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-520-sandforce-review-benchmark,3124-11.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mk4001grzb-endurance-benchmark,3132-2.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-710-enterprise-x25-e,3038-4.html

 

[acku]

Could TH do one SSD comparison run on SATA II controllers before the test becomes meaningless? Since the article is titled "Best SSDs for the Money" and many people are still running SATA II (especially in laptops) wouldn't this be valuable information for a lot of people?

...Not to mention how the intelppm.sys / turboboost issue impacts performance for many laptop owners rendering the test results here invalid for them.

www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sata-6gbps-performance-sata-3gbps,3110.html

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]DjEaZy[/nom]... my vertex 3 still strong...[/citation]
My 30GB first gen Vertex is still powering my main rig This thing retailed at over $300 when I got it, but fortunately I won it rather than having to pay for it (and I wouldn't have).