[citation][nom]jaquith[/nom]There are so many sales that it's impossible to justify "Best" based upon MSRP. I truly wish the maximum R/W wasn't listed in this review as the headliners, especially since IOPS (R/W) and 4K (R/W) are what's important -- not to mention Reliability, $/GB, and Warranty. Choosing the "Best SSD" per price range needs to be a weighted scoring.[/citation]
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.
[citation][nom]RaidenSix[/nom]Any particular reason the Corsair Performance Pro series was not included?[/citation]
Sorry mate, I'll include it next month. Tracing SSDs take a lot of time.
[citation][nom]deepb[/nom]Is there a reason why the Mushkin 90GB version is recomendded over the OCZ Agility 3 90 GB version as the OCZ one is available at Amazon for 85$ http://www.amazon.com/Agility-2-5- [...] 637&sr=1-6[/citation]
Technically they are the same. Both async. (Chronos MX is sync, Chronos Deluxe is toggle). We just choose the Mushkin because it was cheaper at the time. Prices can change in a heartbeat though. Sorry for the confusion.
[citation][nom]TheBigTroll[/nom]mushkin chronos deluxe is awesome[/citation]
And for whatever reason they also tend to be the cheapest 2nd-gen SF + Toggle SSDs.
[citation][nom]josejones[/nom]From the first page of this article: "Now that Intel's Z68 Express chipset is available, the idea of SSD-based caching could come into play for more entry-level enthusiasts, too."Is this accurate or should it say "z77" chipset? Or, wouldn't the z77 chipset be a bit better?[/citation]
As I recall, the Z77 caching numbers didn't look different from Z68. As for caching enabled SSDs, you can use any SSD. While Intel suggests its own brand, there's nothing stopping you from using a Mushkin Chronos Deluxe.
sempifi99 :
Why isn't the OCZ Petrol included here. It would fit perfect in the $110-$200 range. It costs $179 ($199 without current rebates) and has a capacity of 256GB giving the best GB/$ in that price range. Sure it dosn't perform as fast as some other drives but at that price/capacity it is unbeatable.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227781
Petrol is a handicapped Everest 1 SSD. It's to the Octane as the Solid was the Vertex 3. Better bargins out there in my opinion with respect to preformance. Also, it's odd that there's a 256 GB model. Not sure what's going on. OCZ's website only lists 64 GB and 128 GB.
http://www.ocztechnology.com/ocz-petrol-sata-iii-2-5-ssd.html
Cheers,
Andrew Ku
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram