Hyundai Sapphire Low-Cost SSD Review

[kawmic]

First it's 65$ then suddenly 193$? Wtf!!??

 

[falchard]

Do I have to purchase this at a Hyundai dealership?

 

[USAFRet]

And an SSD-only system is the dream.

All 3 of my main systems here are SSD only.
#1, 5 drives, ~2TB

#2, 2 drives, 250GB

#3, 1 drive, 250GB


This did not happen all at once, but just added and repurposed drives over time.
All my spinning drives are either in or attached to the NAS box, where the movie lib lives.

In a low workflow type of user, performance of this thing would probably be fine.
Someone who uses email and facebook, for instance.
Someone who needs actual performance? Not so much.

 

[hst101rox]

More fuel efficient than their cars.. hope they don't get in trouble for inflating bandwidth too..

 

[Sakkura]

That's one test where it's in the middle. What about those other four tests I mentioned where it's dead last? I'm not "completely misrepresenting" anything. In many/most of those tests it's at the bottom or near the bottom. Which I found odd considering it's at the top or near the top in the first of the speed tests.

Well, you were the one who claimed it was much slower in all the other tests. Which just doesn't sound right when it's actually 22 times as fast in one of those other tests (and also faster in several others).

 

[Dan Greer]

This will be great to stretch some extra life out of older laptop computers, where the cost of a more premium drive isn't warranted.

 

[Daekar3]

I can't agree that hard drives need to be "clung" to. Unless you're brave enough to trust your data only to the cloud, you're surely accumulating data at a brisk clip. If you assume that you want reliable local backup and access to your data at a whim, that means you need a single internal drive and 2 external drives mirroring for backup. Have you looked at the prices for 1TB+ SSDs? They're insane.

Anyone who doesn't want to give up control of their data is going to need hard drives for at least a little while longer. We take thousands of pictures a year... that's not something you put on an SSD.

 

[USAFRet]

Anyone who doesn't want to give up control of their data is going to need hard drives for at least a little while longer. We take thousands of pictures a year... that's not something you put on an SSD.

Since last November when I bought my Fuji X-T1, I have 10,000+ files (~7,000 individual pics), split between jpg and RAW about 60/40.

Currently, that takes 130GB.
And yes...all on SSD.
I have a 250GB SSD devoted almost completely just to pictures. Yes, eventually they get moved off that to the NAS box and its spinning drives.
But a system that is 'all SSD' is not out of the realm of price and usability.

 

[falchard]

I am using a 1 TB Samsung 960, and backup my data files on the cloud.

 

[photonboy]

DavidC1,
I don't know what you're on about with the "screeching halt" with the SSD after a period of time, but there's no reason to conclude that will happen. That's mainly an issue if you fill the drive, but if you don't do that, or add Overprovision, or OP is already done for you it's really not an issue.

Even then, show me evidence that an HDD is faster than an over-burdened SSD. Not sure you have proof of that. I suppose it's not impossible, but extremely unlikely.

Other:
Wear-out is not an issue other for many tasks, like storing games. Even with the OS, 240GB is still plenty for most users so with wear-leveling algorithms and sufficient free space it will be many years before you have issues. Beyond problematic for most users.

Other:
One issue most people don't think about with HDD's is that they take a long time to come out of idle. Even when I clink on folders that may be in an SSD, or use Recycle Bin etc, certain tasks it can take over ten seconds for all my HDD's to spin out of idle. (Microsoft, please avoid spinning up HDD's that don't need to.)

 

[Retrogame]

Where a low cost disk like this would be beneficial is in a basic office workstation. I recently researched the cost of building a slightly tweaked workstation and our organization orders machines from companies like Dell in bulk. By default, they all come with a 500 GB HDD.

In the case of Dell you can request a SSD or even a NVMe PCIe 4x M.2 but you pay through the nose for it (as in, 100% mark up over just getting a cheap drive on Newegg) and you have no control over what part they use.

But if the workstation came standard with a cheap but OK SSD like this, that's fine for most people. In our company we don't fill up our standard issue 5400 or 7200 rpm 500 GB HDDs. Everything's stored on the network.

For power users, you could always add in a better SSD as an applications drive seperately.

 

[4745454b]

For power users, you could always add in a better SSD as an applications drive seperately.

Just wondering, are you saying this makes a good OS drive? Even with the low random read/write speeds? I don't know what minimum numbers you need there for it to be a good OS drive but the random read was something I found very troubling. It has a low MSRP, but performance wise I found this drive lacking all the way around.

Edited to fix quote.