rhysiam writes:
> I just get regularly frustrated with how many people fall for basic marketing ploys and get
> themselves "fast" or "pro" SSDs because they want a fast computer.
I entirely agree, and if you have a peek at my other posts elsewhere you'll see I'm a strong
proponent of exploiting used options, older good models like the OCZ Vector, etc. Normally
here I would have mentioned the various Samsung EVO models as a middleground, but
until they fix their degrading old-data issue I'm kinda put off by them, which is a shame
because otherwise the 840 EVO would be a nice compromise.
In that regard, and reverting to my more usual MO, I'd shout out for models like the Samsung
830, the original 840, OCZ Vertex4 (still very good) and Vector, etc. Alas availability will vary
of course, and some wouldn't want to go with a used model, though as I say I get lots of them
sold new via normal auction. I bag Vertex4s and Vectors when I can as they really do hold up
very well compared to the latest models (particularly amusing how high up the site review
charts the Vector remains).
Heck, I'm perfectly happy with the older Vertex3 and Vertex2E, the latter being good for SATA2
systems, or any non-PC system which does not support TRIM such as the IRIX SGIs I use,
or Windows XP, as it was optimised well for non-TRIM setups. I just bought ten 240GB V2E/V3
units which, although used, came from an HP server that hardly ever wrote anything to them
(in several cases, nothing at all, for the others just a few GB total), they were only 40 UKP each.
> Surely you would agree that in performance terms, fast and slow(ish but still decent) SSDs
> don't actually differentiate themselves in any meaningful way until you subject them to
> intensive IO workloads. ...
I certainly would agree 100%.
😀 And you'd be hard pressed to find someone who isn't a site
reviewer who's done more tests than me to explore this notion, hence my
test results archive,
and the practical tests I've run which I'd really like to expand and update when I have the time
(I want to try them with a newer Z68 mbd via Intel SATA3 port):
http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/ssd_tests.txt
I also tested how one particular good SATA3 SSD behaved with different SATA2/3 ports and
controllers (conclusion: avoid Marvell ports!):
http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/misc/sata_vector_tests.txt
> ... And I would argue that the vast, majority of people looking for advice here on the forums
> will never subject their SSDs to anything like that kind of intensive IO situation.
Definitely, though without usage clarity I do tend to skew my recommendations slightly on the
higher side so that there's at least a grain of better reliability included in the model suggestions.
There have been a lot of pro-task people asking for info on the forums in recent months. And it
helps that the higher-end models have been coming down in comparative price recently, eg. I
see the 850 Pro 256GB is now reaching much more sensible levels vs. a few months ago.
> I'm just trying to counter this seemingly widespread belief the pro/premium = better, ...
It all depends on the task of course. Speed-wise, not much separates midrange from pro
models for the average user.
Oh, one exception I'd say are the really old SSD models, which I'd definitely recommend
people avoid. I finally managed to get one of these recently, an OCZ Onyx, by heck is it
slow!
😀 Even ATTO didn't give more than 75MB/sec write, while AS-SSD gave a miserable
score of 171 (4K random read is still better than a rust spinner, but 4K write was a woeful
6MB/sec, and sequential read/write was just 132/60/sec resp.) That's a very blinkered view
of course, as I'm used to newer models, since when it was new these figures were regarded
as fast (I checked reviews to be sure). Hence, if someone asked whether they should get a
new/unused but dirt cheap OCZ Onyx, I'd say no.
😀 Others I'd avoid would be the OCZ
Solid, older Corsairs, etc.
So though I'm a strong supporter of older model bargains, even used based on honest
usage descriptions, there are limits. Still, one can get some good stuff. I'm building a
PC for the lady who does the gardening for someone I know, just helping out (ie. zero
profit for me), managed to get a completely new Intel 520 Series 240GB for only 49 UKP,
and it works very well indeed (scores 789 with AS-SSD; check my archive).
Sometimes the amounts asked for completely new SSDs even via BIN are surprisingly
low, one can just get lucky, eg. I won this recently (cost just 43.20 UKP total):
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Ocz-Arc-100-240gb-Bnib-/121560953894?orig_cvip=true
Surprisingly quick model, scores 957 for AS-SSD. I've put it into a pro system as a scratch drive.
> ... which leads many people to waste money on potential performance that's never realised. ...
That's true, I've posted about it many times, ie. money that could be used to improve some
other part of the system, like a better GPU, mbd, or improved cooling setup.
> ... Sure it's faster the in theory, but you need a intensive workloads to extract the extra performance. ...
True in general, but TBH I have come across situations where a dual-core, especially older
2-cores like Athlon64s and Core2Duo, does feel a bit sluggish sometimes on systems which
have a typical home user setup of various security programs, plugins, etc. I'm fixing my
neighbour's family PC atm which is a typical example, it has a 3GHz AMD 6000+, 4GB DDR2/800,
OCZ Vertex2E 120GB, 8800GT (I built it for them several years ago on a shoestring), and is
terribly overloaded with all sorts of addons they've installed (itunes, games, shopping/phone-
related extras, etc.), though the SSD makes a big difference. Newer dual-cores fare better,
but these days I'd usually recommend a quad unless the user was sure they're not going to
install so much junk on their system. Alas this particular PC can't be overclocked for certain
reasons, whereas at least other systems I've built alleviate this to some extent with a potent
oc (eg. i3 550 @ 4.7GHz).
> Because enthusiasts often have intensive CPU & GPU requirements, they assume they need a
> premium SSD too, but that is not usually the case.
It is amusing what they regard as intensive, when usually the overall system is not stressing
multiple parts at once for long periods, something that a pro task like After Effects really can
do in a far more stressful manner. I've built oc'd 3930K systems with 64GB RAM, multiple GPUs,
SSDs, etc., which can pass every benchmark & test one can think of (3DMark, Viewperf, FC2,
CB, toms suite, etc.), but not run AE properly since AE stresses the entire system for a long
time. Enthusiast users rarely do anything as intensive.
> You're right to ask about the workload, of course, I'm just suggesting that it's more likely
> to be a standard enthusiast workload which is well served by any half decent SSD ...
I agree, and normally I'd err on that side too. Until the EVO issues are fixed though, and
without further info, I figured it safer to lean on the higher side, but you're right. TBH I iniitally
replied when I was tired, couldn't be arsed writing out my usual blurb supporting used options,
older models, etc.
😀
Models like the latest MX/BX units though just feel too new atm, I keep expecting some fw
issue or other to crop up. Hopefully not, though the number of negative reviews on Amazon
is not good.
> RE second hand, how do you go with warranty in that case? I'd be nervous personally. ...
Good question.
😀 Hence my caveats. I guess it's up to the individual whether they think the
risk is worth the saving (certainly not if the saving is only 10% or somesuch), since atm the
saving via normal auction for some models is often not remotely worthwhile. Atm it seems
like many people bidding on eBay haven't really absorbed the fact that various new models
of SSD are about the same or even cheaper than the amounts I've seen some winners pay
for used models, which is nuts, eg. I saw a SanDisk Extreme II 240GB sell for more than the
cost of a new X300 - that's crazy!
I own about 60 SSDs and so far I've not had any issues, except for a SanDisk Ultra Plus
which briefly vanished from being detectable after a fw update attempt, though re your
comment it's an interesting example because SanDisk told me they'd be happy to replace it
with a newer model if it was dead, even though I made it pretty clear I didn't buy it from a
normal new source - they even added it to their support register before I'd finished testing
the unit! 8) Thankfully the SSD came back to life and is working ok now, but certainly I was
impressed with their willingness to help out.
I guess it varies between suppliers, some will have transferable warranties, others won't,
but then I always tell people building a system with an SSD that they should have some
kind of proper backup anyway, eg. on my SGI I use an external SAS 4-bay unit containing
other SSDs which receive regular clones, while on my PCs I use Macrium Reflect to create
backup image files and I have some spare SSDs ready to go should they be needed (for
the PC I'm using to type this, a 5GHz 2700K on an ASUS M4E with a Vector 256GB, I clone
it now & then to a Vertex3).
> I'd rather get a "slower" new drive with warranty than go second hand.
Just worth remembering that when it comes to SSDs, all the warranty will do is cover one
wrt replacing the faulty device, it won't help get the data back. Hence having a backup
solution is essential, and why I tend to err towards more reliable models, also why the PLP
of the M550 is such a nice idea. By now we really ought to have PLP on
all SSDs as
standard, it shouldn't be an Enterprise-category feature IMO.
Oh, a good example of what I meant by new normal-auction bargains, I won two Samsung
850 Pro 256GB units last November for the equivalent of 103 UKP each, which really was an
excellent deal. I put them into my two gaming systems (one is a different 5GHz 2700K, the
other a 4.8GHz 3930K, both GTX 980). That single win saved me about 100 UKP, or about 33%.
Ian.
PS. Poseidon5001, are you out there?
😀 What capacity do you need, and what will you be
using your system for?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram