Best SSDs For The Money: October 2011

Status
Not open for further replies.

amk-aka-Phantom

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2011
3,003
0
20,860
31
This is EXACTLY the article I wanted, since I want to get an SSD soon! Great review, though a bit short... maybe could do boot time comparison?

This 60GB OCZ Agility 3 seems like a great option and costs only $100... well, $156 'round here :( Still, it has the best read/write speeds for the price; anyone having issues with that drive? Don't want to run into some BS for that much money...

Any other good drive for that money? The hierarchy chart has many models listed, but very few made it in the "Best" categories.
 

cumi2k4

Distinguished
Mar 6, 2011
309
0
18,810
14
I don't get this sentence: "a file operation completes 85% faster on a low-end SSD than it does on a high-end hard drive, but there is only an 88% speed difference between a high-end hard drive and a high-end SSD"

does this mean there's only 3% margin difference between low-end and high-end ssd?

Also i don't get the chart...does this mean OCZ Agility 3 60 GB (tier 9) is worse than OCZ Agility 3 120 GB (tier 8) in speed? or is it just due to less capacity?

(sorry this is my first time to foray into ssd...budget user here ;))
 
G

Guest

Guest
Just bought Samsung 470 128GB on Newegg for $179.99.
Great deal, if you ask me. And the speeds are absolutely amazing!
Lucky me, sale ended day after I ordered mine. $229.99 at the moment.
Seq read 200 MB/s
Seq write 245 MB/s
Rand read 28000 IOPS
Rand write 15000 IOPS
 

flong

Distinguished
Dec 27, 2010
1,106
0
19,310
18
Finally, an SSD hierarchy that actually matches the data of other professional reviewers with the exception of the M4. A much better job by TH for this article.

However, the Muskin 120GB is the top dog for 120GB SSDs. It beats most 240GB drives including the Vertex 3 240GB in most benchmarks. This is phenomenal for a 120GB drive.

I still don't get the obsession with Crucial M4 as it is slower than the top tier SSDs. I am not sure why it keeps getting recommended as it is not faster and there is no reliable data to show it is more reliable. Maybe someone can chime in and explain why TH chose the M4?
 

flong

Distinguished
Dec 27, 2010
1,106
0
19,310
18
[citation][nom]radium69[/nom]Crucial M4 hands down Reliability is #1 priorityDon't forget that!Can we see some failure and RMA rates please![/citation]

There are no comprehensive reliability studies for SSDs so why do you think that the M4 is more reliable than any other SSD? Also, if reliability is your top goal then Intel's SSDs supposedly are the most reliable though we have no data to confirm this factually.
 

flong

Distinguished
Dec 27, 2010
1,106
0
19,310
18
[citation][nom]ViciousDelicious[/nom]Just bought Samsung 470 128GB on Newegg for $179.99.Great deal, if you ask me. And the speeds are absolutely amazing!Lucky me, sale ended day after I ordered mine. $229.99 at the moment.Seq read 200 MB/sSeq write 245 MB/sRand read 28000 IOPSRand write 15000 IOPS[/citation]

The Kingston Hyer X is $179.99 on Newegg right now and it is more than twice as fast. What is the attraction to the Samsung 470? I am asking sincerely, not in a smart ass way.
 

thrawn1799

Distinguished
Sep 13, 2011
3
0
18,510
0
Why is Samsung left off this list? Yes, I read about the reason they left off the 830 series but that still doesn't explain why the 470 is excluded.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Like thrawn1799 said... Where are the Samsung SSD?
The 470 are very good ones. And the new ones, 830.
Good performance and the reliability is on pair whit Crucial M4.
 

uruquiora

Distinguished
Mar 19, 2010
109
0
18,690
1
well done Tom, thanks, this is exactly the kind of articles i like...
I would love to see in // a reliability chart ... No mention has been made of all the BSOD problms on the vertex 3 series for instance...
I understand Intel is the ultimate at the moment but apart from them, i'd love a pro and cons comparison, not only a $/capacity comparison...
 

CaedenV

Splendid
Could we see the iops instead of the mb/s? I think that would help some of the questions people are having between different drive picks.
Also, SSDs are hard to compare as they are build for different needs. Intel SSDs tend to be slow and expensive, but very reliable. Some smaller SSDs are great performers, but not for 'single drive use' as you put it. Other larger drives have great throughput (mb/s), but lower iops which is what makes an SSD a good boot/program drive (OCZ Solid/Agility/Vertex is a prime example of this). It would be less confusing to see more separation between the intended use of each drive and then review, rather than throwing them all in the same monolithic list and having a million price point tiers.
 
G

Guest

Guest
[citation][nom]flong[/nom]The Kingston Hyer X is $179.99 on Newegg right now and it is more than twice as fast. What is the attraction to the Samsung 470? I am asking sincerely, not in a smart ass way.[/citation]

I'm with you on this one. My monitoring of NewEgg customer reviews leaves me to believe that the smaller population of Samsung SSD owners (470) are experiencing much lower failure rates, albeit at a reduction of performance. Reliability > performance in my opinion. Apple and a few other OEMs have been using the 470 for a while and at least Apple has had good success with their reliability.

I'm waiting for the Samsung 830. ;)
 

cadder

Distinguished
Nov 17, 2008
1,702
0
19,860
43
Once again I shall step in as the SSD watchdog.

I started at the bottom and looked up the user feedback on newegg for the recommended models. The BEST of these had at least 34% of the users that were extremely dissatisfied, the WORST had 66%, that's a full 2/3 of buyers, that were extremely dissatisfied with their purchases. I cannot understand how toms can recommend a product that 1/3 to 2/3 of buyers will be dissatisfied with. Intel, Crucial, Plextor and Samsung seem to have the best reliability, OCZ the worst.

Research for yourself and think carefully before buying.

OCZ Vertex Plus 60gb
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227738
66% dissatisfied

OCZ Agility 3 60gb
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227725
40% dissatisfied

OCZ Agility 3 120GB
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227726
34% dissatisfied

Adata S511 120gb
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211551
44% dissatisfied

Patriot Wildfire
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220599
34% dissatisfied
 

cadder

Distinguished
Nov 17, 2008
1,702
0
19,860
43
[citation][nom]flong[/nom]There are no comprehensive reliability studies for SSDs so why do you think that the M4 is more reliable than any other SSD? Also, if reliability is your top goal then Intel's SSDs supposedly are the most reliable though we have no data to confirm this factually.[/citation]

There is nothing truly scientific, but the next best thing are the user feedback ratings on newegg. You can research what past buyers have said about the drives and make up your own opinion. If 10% of the feedback of one product is bad, and 66% of the feedback of another product is bad, which would you feel safe in spending your own money on? There has got to be a reason that 66% of feedback is bad, and I don't want to spend my money just so I can find out firsthand what that reason is.
 

RCPG

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2009
58
0
18,640
3
OCZ Agility 3 120 GB has a stated Sequential Read of 525 MB/s and a stated Sequential Write of 500 MB/s and it's on Tier 8? Does it mean that EVERY SSD on a tier above is faster that that? 500+ MB Read/Write is already lightning fast! How fast are those other drives? If each tier has a 10% difference in performance than the tier 1 SSDs should have like 70% more performance (like around 800 MB read/write). Well, I don't think that's the case so it should have something to do with the queue depth, amount of data and the other metrics and not only sequential read/write. Even so, that OCZ Agility 3 120 GB is a pretty fast SSD for the price and with sufficient space for Windows, programs and games. Nice!
 

keithca

Distinguished
Oct 14, 2011
2
0
18,510
0
cadder and flong have nailed the issue. who cares how fast something is if you can't rely on it. been there done that with OCZ. never again.
 

agnickolov

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2006
520
0
18,980
0
It's still a few years until an SSD enters my gaming machine. I require at least 450GB (480GB with current SSD capacity points) at a reasonable price (under $300). With that said, I already got a 96GB SSDNow SSD for my HTPC. Cost me $105 after rebate ($135 before rebate on newegg) and that was a great choice. The main storage difference between the two is that games take a lot of space. I just upgraded to a 450GB Velociraptor ($130 1-day deal on newegg) for my games and that would have to tide me until SSD prices drop and capacities increase sufficiently for my needs...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS