Plextor S2C SSD Review

[Guest]

Plextor introduced a new series of SSDs to attack the entry-level consumer market. The first product in the S2 family is the S2C, which might be one of the better low-cost SSDs released in 2016.

Plextor S2C SSD Review : Read more

 

[skoalreaver]

So average entry level performance is a Pro and a Con. WTF toms?

 

[wtfiwin]

@skoalreaver relax probably just meant what it says.

can't wait to see some QLC or 3D-QLC for mass storage 20TB SSDs.

 

[Medric]

it is a pro cause its here but a con because this will start to be standerd; no more 8 channel so you know this could go alot faster than it is but i wont so it sucks

 

[chumly]

@Chris

I never buy anything except for Samsung SSDs (unequaled performance numbers). However I run them in RAID. I was curious if RAID performance, especially in the real world application (game loads), would take less time or more time. I have never seen a comparison done in the kinds of tests you guys do with storage performance in tandem. I'm curious if it's worth the average person's time to run paired discs vs. unpaired.

 

[CRamseyer]

It is a pro and a con. As mentioned above, it is a good thing because we will get lower prices but a con because this type of performance is now the norm. It really all depends on when you jumped on the SSD train. I've been riding along since 2007 and saw performance rise, continue to rise for several years and then suddenly use "tricks" to achieve high levels of performance.

If you only recently used SSDs then the least common denominator method is normal and acceptable.

If your workload requires or uses heavy sequential reads and writes then RAID for performance (RAID 0) is a powerful tool with SATA SSDs. NVMe products are generally fast enough where RAID doesn't deliver the same performance increase. The bottleneck moves away from the storage device and to other areas like the file system.

 

[HERETIC-1]

Hi Chris,
Nice review as always.Wouldn't surprise me if Plextor/Liteon wasn't the OEM
for the Intel 540.
One change I'd have made was-Drop the Crucial lemon from the charts,and
added 750 EVO........................

 

[CRamseyer]

Pricing for the 750 EVO is so hit or miss these days in relation to the 850 EVO. If Samsung could keep it a good 20-25% less we would take it more serious. The difference in the 250GB capacity size right now on Amazon is less than $10. Unless you are digging through the couch to fund the purchase the easy pick between the two is the 850 EVO.

 

[daglesj]

32GB of ram to use the Turbo Feature? Someone didn't bother optimising their software.

 

[daglesj]

I'd be intrigued to find out how the old budget fave the Kingston V300 fares against these TLC parts.

 

[CRamseyer]

Which version of the V300? I don't know how many exist now but it's a handful of different controller and NAND configurations.

I'm working on a page that will have tests from a bunch of SSDs in very long, organized, charts.

 

[daglesj]

Not too bothered really, the ones that came out 6 months after release I guess. They are the ones most common I would say. Its just that was the budget SSD of its time that sold a lot and it would be interesting to compare that budget SSD with the modern budget TLC ones.

 

[HERETIC-1]

Hi Chris,I threw in the 750 as I consider it to be the best of the planer TLC drives,
even if we don't know what's happening in the background-aka 840 read issues.
Here in OZ the 750 is $37 cheaper than the 850.
And yes my choice would still be the 850.

 

[mapesdhs]

Better option: bag a used 840 Pro off ebay, I've obtained a fair few this way, 55 UKP seems to be about typical atm for a 256GB.

 

[mlee 2500]

While there is certainly a price delta between these types of SATA-throttled drives versus NVMe, the difference is only enough to matter if you're buying ALLOT of drives or require multiple terabytes.

For a high performance workstation or gaming machine that requires maybe only a couple drives....why would you not spend the extra $100-$200 and get 6x performance in a smaller form factor?

 

[mapesdhs]

For a high performance workstation or gaming machine that requires maybe only a couple drives....why would you not spend the extra $100-$200 and get 6x performance in a smaller form factor?

6x what performance? It's not going to produce extra fps, and the vast majority of users won't really notice the difference. For pro users it very much depends on the application; good for Sony Vegas, good for an AE cache, but in many other cases little difference. What I'd like to know is why SATA SSD prices have shot up so much, the 850 EVO is now 50% more than it was a year ago, and I'm not buying the whole DRAM shortage idea. These companies aren't stupid, they know how to manage supply when it's needed. Equally irritating is the contrast between the 960 Pro and SM961 (same tech, huge cost difference), and why the 850 Pro is so much more than the 960 Pro. Building a PC has simply become a lot more expensive recently.