In the market for a 120 or 128 gig ssd

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
im selling my crucial m4 64gig ssd today and i plan on replacing it with an ssd with double the capacity and faster write speeds. my m4 was awesome and once i installed win7 x64 on it i never had trouble again like i have with my older mechanical drives [1tb WD cav. green to blame for that], sold that old mechanical for a 2tb cav. black and got an m4 a few months before that, havent had a single problem since.

well i am thinking about a sandisk extreme ssd. it seems to be at a lower price range than most for its speed and has a reliability track record of an m4.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820171567

looking for benches and ill research a few days before making my selection and probably post 1 or 2 more forums in the next week. i looked a toms hierarchy charts and didnt even sandisk in it going back to 2011, not even 1 mention
 
First, the SanDisk Extreme is a good choice, But I think I would still select the M4, or Samsung 830.
1) HIGH performance is primarily based on Benchmarks using Data that is Highly compressible and therefore artificially Higher than what real performance would be when used as a OS + Program drive.
.. Sequential performance is the least important matrix for an OS + Program drive, 4 K Random reads followed by writes is what is important.
.. SF22xx Loves data that is highly compressible, Unfortunately this is not real life as OS + Programs only compress slightly
2) For performance comparison I prefer to use AS SSD, Which uses compressed data for the benchmark.
.. Comparing the 240 Gig SanDisk (120 gig probably slightly lower) in Referenced review, and My 128 Gig M4, overall score is almost Identical.

nbq5xj.jpg

Review of 240 Gig SanDisk Extreme
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1943/4/

Bottom Line: You will probably be happy with the Sandforce; Just don’t base it on thinking that there will be a notable performance increase in “Real Life” over the 128 gig M4 or Samsung 830 – Not going to happen.
 
LordConrad
The Mushkin Enhanced Chronos use async NAND and performs about the Same as the Agility III. Yes they will run circles around a HDD. But their performance is no better on sata III than if it was on SATA II. Just NOT in the same league as Sync, or toggle NAND Sata III SSDs. Only recommend if can not afford the better SSDs
Deluxe model - OK
 
what is the best performance/price ratio? the most i want to spend right now is $120 not including tax/shipping so i want the best i can get for that. what makes the very best OS/program drive, gues thats what i want most
 
I see this alot "performance/price".
There my be noticable diffes in Benchmarks, But does that equat to a large diff in rel life usage, Not really. Example, My slow Sata II SSDs open most programs in two blinks of the eye, My Sata III SSDs, one Blink, NOT going to see the 1/4 of a blink between the upper end SATA III SSDs. On boot time, between upper end, maybe two sec shaved, Don't think that matters a whole bunch.

Bottom Line, For the "better" SATA III SSDs ignore ATTO benchies and ask about "Reliability/cost."
 
the mushkin ssds dont seem to be quite as reliable as samsung, sandisk and m4s
 



Excellent advice from RetiredChief ^. The ssd shines in small random i/o, that is what the os does mostly.
There is very little difference in response times among current SSD's.
 
after you consider cost, reliability and performance which would be your top 3 choices.

im not as intelligent when it comes to storage, i just get something with a proven track record and thats the way have been doing it, i used to give a lot of motherboard advice on here which was my specialty
 


I see SSD performance as a non issue; they are all good.

For reliability, I would look to Samsung 830, or Intel 330 or 520.
Yes, they may cost a bit more. .
But, they make their own nand chips, and can do a better job of validation.

Worth is for YOU to decide.
I have rarely regretted paying more for the best.
I have often regretted buying cheap.
 
I have always preferred the SandForce drives because of the low write amplification, which is due to the built-in data compression. Theoretically, this means the drives will have a longer lifespan. Realistically, I can't say as I've not used up any SSDs for a comparison. I can say that I have installed four SandForce drives (two with the 1222 controller and two with the 2281 controller), each in a different computer, and not one of them ever had any problems.

My most recent installation was a 240GB Mushkin Chronos Deluxe into a Mac Mini (Mid 2011 model). The current price of $0.83 per GB on the 240GB model and the great performance of the drive is why I've started recommending the Mushkin drives.
 
In my experience, SSDs are just as reliable as Hard Drives. Production lines never test 100% of the products coming off of them, so there is always a chance you'll get a defective unit. The companies with the best reputations are Intel, Samsung, and Crucial. Even these companies are not perfect. I recall Intel having a serious firmware bug not long ago, which took them a while to fix.
 
won't be getting it for a week or 3 so I have time, just ordered a gtx 670 today
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom