Question Budget SSD

mihai21ro

Commendable
Nov 15, 2016
11
0
1,510
0
Hello everyone, I'm trying to decide what 512 GB SSD to buy. I'm looking to spend around $60, and the choice right now is Silicon Power A55. Is it a good choice or should I look for other SSD's?

I saw Crucial MX500 being recommended here but it's $30 more expensive in my country and I can also get ADATA SX6000 Pro for that money. But since I'm only going to use it for OS and gaming, I don't think I need a NVMe, so I'm looking for something cheaper.
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
Mar 16, 2013
114,603
2,122
157,240
18,640
Samsung, Crucial, Sandisk, WD Blue...in that order.
Or, Intel 660p if your system supports an NVMe at full speed.

Anything else...substandard.

You'll be living with this drive for several years. Don't go cheap.
 

mihai21ro

Commendable
Nov 15, 2016
11
0
1,510
0
@USAFRet B350 PC Mate is my motherboard. You think it supports NVMe at full speed? Also, SX6000 Pro has the exact same price as the Intel and way better read/write, do you think it's a better choice?

Also, since you mentioned Crucial, their cheapest option is the BX500. Opinions about this one?
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
Mar 16, 2013
114,603
2,122
157,240
18,640
@USAFRet B350 PC Mate is my motherboard. You think it supports NVMe at full speed? Also, SX6000 Pro has the exact same price as the Intel and way better read/write, do you think it's a better choice?

Also, since you mentioned Crucial, their cheapest option is the BX500. Opinions about this one?
Yes, it seems to support an NVMe drive at its full speed.
https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/B350-PC-MATE/Specification
"Supports PCIe 3.0 x4 "

ADATA vs Intel?
What will you use this for? (I'd probably go with the Intel)
 
In the US, the 512GB Patriot Scorch goes for $54.99, but it runs PCIe x2... still faster than SATA, though. I'm using a 128GB version of the same drive in The Micro Machine (see my sig).

The 512GB Intel 660p goes for $59.99, but runs PCIe x4.

Whether or not you'd see any real world difference in use case, I couldn't say, but likely you wouldn't notice the difference.

I did just a very quick check, but I didn't notice any 2.5" SATA drives that were any better of a deal at the 500-512GB capacity.
 

mihai21ro

Commendable
Nov 15, 2016
11
0
1,510
0
@King_V the thing is that 660p is QLC while ADATA SX6000 Pro is TLC. The price difference is minimal - about 5$. $75 for SX6000, $70 for 660p.

Also tom's hardware seems to recommend SX8200 Pro, I have no idea if there's a difference between the SX8200 and SX6000 , excepting the speed, maybe you can enlighten me about this one as well.
 

mihai21ro

Commendable
Nov 15, 2016
11
0
1,510
0
@USAFRet from what I read, QLC is not recommended at all for OS. Also TLC should be better in all aspects, excepting the price. But since I can get the TLC one for the same price, there's no point in getting the QLC one, right?

Also I'm considering getting the sx8200 pro 256gb, guess I don't need 512 gb for OS + a few competitive games. It's comparable to Samsung 970 Evo (even better). But from what I see, the speeds are downgraded a lot with the 256gb version, so is it worth getting the 256gb version over the 512?
 

mihai21ro

Commendable
Nov 15, 2016
11
0
1,510
0
Performance dropping when the driver gets almost full. Also everyone says SLC > MLC > TLC > QLC, so choosing a TLC over QLC should be normal.
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
Mar 16, 2013
114,603
2,122
157,240
18,640
Performance dropping when the driver gets almost full. Also everyone says SLC > MLC > TLC > QLC, so choosing a TLC over QLC should be normal.
  1. You're not supposed to let an SSD get "full" anyway. No matter the type of technology. Perhaps you're thinking of when the cache gets full?
  2. "Everyone says" a lot of crap. Yes, certain technologies have slight benchmark benefits over others. In reality, I defy the vast majority of people to tell the difference in a blind test.
 
Reactions: mihai21ro
Crucial's MX500 is about $65 on Amazon...; if you have an available M.2 NVME port, Intel's 660P 1 TB NVME/M.2 model is only $95 or so; twice the capacity and 3 times faster is a bargain. (Intel has a 500 GB variant for only $66)
 

mihai21ro

Commendable
Nov 15, 2016
11
0
1,510
0
  1. You're not supposed to let an SSD get "full" anyway. No matter the type of technology. Perhaps you're thinking of when the cache gets full?
  2. "Everyone says" a lot of crap. Yes, certain technologies have slight benchmark benefits over others. In reality, I defy the vast majority of people to tell the difference in a blind test.
How do I exactly know when the cache gets full?
Right now I have an Kingston UV400 120gb, how much space should I let free for the cache?

@mdd1963 same as the above question, how much space should I let free for an intel 660p so it performs normally?
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
Mar 16, 2013
114,603
2,122
157,240
18,640
It just a case of leaving 15-20% free space, as with any SSD.

The cache filling up thing is only relevant to a long copy of a single large file. Partway through the process, it will slow down a little.
It's not something you control or worry about.
 
Reactions: mihai21ro

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS