[SOLVED] HDD died, Which SSD to use?

Jul 9, 2019
16
0
10
0
My main HDD finally died, so I see this as the perfect moment to upgrade to an SSD, I intend to put the OS (Win 7) there and a couple of games (mainly the ones whose load times averaged 1 min before the HDD's death). Initially I thought in buying a 250GB MX 500 but that money gives me some options of higher capacity or different brands with lower costs, namely:

Kingston SA400S37 480 GB

ADATA ASU650/ASU630 480GB

Gigabyte GP-GSTFS31240GNTD 240GB

Western Digital Green WDS240G1G0A 240GB
Western Digital Blue WDS250G2B0A 250GB

I don't intend to really fill/empty it a lot and a reduction from the nearly 10 min. that took the PC to finally be usable anything is a win, i.e., a difference of 5 seconds on boot/load times isn't a critical factor for me. So, the main question is: the MX500 is really worth the extra money?
Also, from the Crucial site I've figured that the MX500 is compatible with my mobo, so I assume the rest of SSDs are too but even then: Is there a chance to find troubles while installing the OS/drivers, due to compatibility and not my own stupidity?

My specs (I know this ain't amazing nor new by any means):

FX-6300 Black Edition
M5A78L-M-plus-USB3
2*4GB RAM
RX 570 8GB
650W PSU

Thanks in advance.
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
Mar 16, 2013
117,033
2,583
148,290
19,067
You're going to be living with this drive for several years. This is not the time to go cheap.
The Samsung and Crucial are proven, reliable performers. The WD Blue just below that.

The WD Green is decidedly slow in the SATA III SSD world.
The ADATA...I wouldn't.
The Gigabyte? Again, slower than the other options.
 
Jul 9, 2019
16
0
10
0
And how about the Kingston? That one is double the capacity for the same price. And the reviews ain't bad, that's why its my first alternative.

This is not the time to go cheap.
I'm not trying to be cheap, just trying to get the more adequate one for my needs. After some ninja googling, the difference in warranty is 2 years, but since I don't plan on giving it a Hardcore usage I believe that doesn't really matter. Now, about the speed, I'm used to wait 10 MINUTES for Windows to be usable, IDK what's slow on the world of SSDs, but Im sure it ain't nearly close to that mark.

It's not my intention to sound as a condescending prick I'm just geniously curious as to what makes such a difference on the cost per GB, between a brand that ain't bad in other stuff they make (USB memories and RAMs) to the default "optimal" brands. Thanks for replying and sorry for asking a lot.
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
Mar 16, 2013
117,033
2,583
148,290
19,067
I'm seriously soured on Kingstons, due to their initial foolishness about their old V300 line.
They sent out review devices...the reviews were "Oh, these are GREAT".
Then, they swapped the innards, resulting in much reduced performance. But kept the same name.
That whole Vx00 line is soured for me.

Plus, my one and only Kingston, HyperX 3k 120GB...has seriously slowed down over the years.
All my other SSD's have maintained near original performance. Some coming up on 5 years old...a couple of Samsung 840 EVO's.

Are all Kingstons like that?
Probably not.
But for me...that is on the Do Not Buy list.

And the warranty length can make a difference. I had a SanDisk die right at the 3 year warranty. 33 days past, but they gave me a new one anyway.
If it had been 2 years past...they almost certainly would not have.
3 years vs 5 years can do wonders.

Reliability and sustained performance.

Any SSD will be miles faster than your current HDD.
But 3 or 4 years from now, you may wish you had gotten a better one.
 
Jul 9, 2019
16
0
10
0
Then, they swapped the innards, resulting in much reduced performance. But kept the same name.
And the warranty length can make a difference. I had a SanDisk die right at the 3 year warranty. 33 days past, but they gave me a new one anyway.
If it had been 2 years past...they almost certainly would not have.
3 years vs 5 years can do wonders.

Reliability and sustained performance.
Fair enough, will do some extra research on the subject. Thanks for the info and your time!
 
Jul 9, 2019
16
0
10
0
For $12 difference, I know which I'd go for.
Unfortunately, I'm not in USA, so after shipping and taxes, that 500GB MX500 ends up at about $82, while still cheaper than the $97 it would cost me in my country it's nowhere near the $57 I'd pay on the A400 or the $62 for the 250GB one. That $5 difference for nearly double the capacity is what initially sprung my doubts.
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
Mar 16, 2013
117,033
2,583
148,290
19,067
Regarding your proposed Kingston A400, read here...;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS