# SSD choice?



## qu4k3r (Jun 13, 2013)

Hi there,
I'd like to buy a ssd.

Size? 256, 250 or 240gb.

I really prefer 256gb to maximize capacity. Actually my main HD is 320gb and have only 46gb free, so I think 256gb would feel a little tight.

Budget? 150 to 180$

I was going to buy this one last week at 149.99$ but now that offer is over.
SanDisk Extreme SSD 240 GB ...................................................... 174$

Other options:
SanDisk Ultra Plus SSD 256 GB .................................................... 170$
Samsung MZ-7TD250BW 840 Series Solid State Drive (SSD) 250 GB ... 172$
Mushkin Enhanced Callisto Deluxe 240 GB ...................................... 170$
Mushkin Chronos 240 GB ........................................................... 170$
Kingston Digital 240GB SSDNow V300 ........................................... 175$

I sorted them in capacity terms, my main concern.

What would be the best chioce in terms of performance?

Thanks in advance 

pd: If you can find other option at amazon in that range of price and capacity do not hesitate to let me know


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jun 13, 2013)

SanDisk Ultra Plus models are slow they are basically meant for laptops and whatnot...
SanDisk Extreme's are nice! I'm running 2 Extreme's in RAID0 and I get an average of 1Gb/s read write speeds on their own they do about 550Mb/s 

The Samsung is in the same boat as the Tha SanDisk Ultra Plus with fast reads and slow writes.

That Mushkin is SLOW!!!!! 285MB/s read 275Mb/s right

The Kingston is 450Mb/s average The Sandisk Extreme is 550Mb/s reas 520 Mb/s right
and imo your only choices here are the Kingston and the SanDisk....Personally I'd go for the Sandisk.

Given if you don't have a SATA 3 (6gb/s) mobo you wont notice a difference but you will if you upgrade.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 13, 2013)

OCZ?

OCZ Vertex 4 VTX4-25SAT3-256G  Solid State Drive -...

OCZ Vector Series VTR1-25SAT3-256G  Solid State Dr...

edit nevermind read the budget.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jun 13, 2013)

Just my opinion....I wouldn't buy OCZ regardless...
They have had more issues with their SSD's than any other company and they charge a premium for what amounts to be junk...and it hasn't stopped yet and their quality still hasn't gotten any better...
Seems like they are the only company that sells a shit load of refurbished models for every single SSD they sell and that tells me they are shit...here have a look
 PCs & Laptops, Laptop Accessories, Internal SSD, ...


----------



## qu4k3r (Jun 13, 2013)

jmcslob said:


> SanDisk Ultra Plus models are slow they are basically meant for laptops and whatnot...
> SanDisk Extreme's are nice! I'm running 2 Extreme's in RAID0 and I get an average of 1Gb/s read write speeds on their own they do about 550Mb/s
> 
> The Samsung is in the same boat as the Tha SanDisk Ultra Plus with fast reads and slow writes.
> ...


Yes, I have sata 3 mobo.

When you say "slow", you mean they are slower than other ssd's which are faster, right?

But generally speaking a "slow" sdd is still much faster than any hard drive, or am I wrong?


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jun 13, 2013)

qu4k3r said:


> Yes, I have sata 3 mobo.
> 
> When you say "slow", you mean they are slower than other ssd's which are faster, right?
> 
> But generally speaking a "slow" sdd is still much faster than any hard drive, or am I wrong?



Yeah...I mean slow compared to other SSD's which are still faster than Mechanical HDD's

That Mushkin SSD is the slowest of them all...
Max Sequential Read
Up To 285 MB/s

Max Sequential Write
Up to 275 MB/s

The SanDisk Ultra Plus 
Max Sequential Read
    Up to 530 MB/s

Max Sequential Write
    Up to 445 MB/s

Samsung 840
Sustained Sequential Read
    530 MB/s

Sustained Sequential Write
    240 MB/s 

The Kingston has a Sustained Sequential Read 450Mb/s 
Sustained Sequential Write 450 Mb/s

SanDisk Extreme comes out on top with 
Sustained Sequential Read 550Mb/s read 
Max Sequential Write 520 Mb/s write.


----------



## drdeathx (Jun 13, 2013)

jmcslob said:


> Just my opinion....I wouldn't buy OCZ regardless...
> They have had more issues with their SSD's than any other company and they charge a premium for what amounts to be junk...and it hasn't stopped yet and their quality still hasn't gotten any better...
> Seems like they are the only company that sells a shit load of refurbished models for every single SSD they sell and that tells me they are shit...here have a look
> PCs & Laptops, Laptop Accessories, Internal SSD, ...



Those problems are history, they use a different controller


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jun 13, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> Those problems are history, they use a different controller



Nope....They are showing up on the Indilinx controller as well
 PCs & Laptops, Laptop Accessories, Internal SSD, ...

They are already having issue with the Vertex 4's just like they have with every other model they have ever had...


----------



## pigulici (Jun 13, 2013)

+1 Samsung(I have 2...)


----------



## cdawall (Jun 13, 2013)

jmcslob said:


> Nope....They are showing up on the Indilinx controller as well
> PCs & Laptops, Laptop Accessories, Internal SSD, ...
> 
> They are already having issue with the Vertex 4's just like they have with every other model they have ever had...



Those are the cheapy drives most companies have issues with cheapy drives. I rather like the indilinx based controllers, I still have my several year old barefoot controller based drives (one of the original TRIM setups) running in raid 0 with TRIM disabled. Basically everything they say not to do I have done and they still work. The crossover year when it when it had the marvel controller (barefoot2) I could care not.


----------



## Jetster (Jun 13, 2013)

I have three OCZ drives and not one issue. Vertex 3 and 4. I was under the impression that firmware fixed there issues. I know they were up for sale but got new investors.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jun 13, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Those are the cheapy drives most companies have issues with cheapy drives. I rather like the indilinx based controllers, I still have my several year old barefoot controller based drives (one of the original TRIM setups) running in raid 0 with TRIM disabled. Basically everything they say not to do I have done and they still work. The crossover year when it when it had the marvel controller (barefoot2) I could care not.



OCZ is using a tweaked version of the barefoot 3 that runs slightly slower at a lower voltage and I think they are doing that because of their MLC memory is crap.

I think Intel, SanDisk and Kingston have kinda proven that its something else besides the Sandforce controllers that are at fault...sure they all had issues with em but not even close to what OCZ had and I think the reason for that is OCZ is cutting corners on its choice of MLC memory...

I'm not saying everything OCZ makes is crap I'm just saying I'd rather you find out if it is or not and I'll take your word for it and buy something else...LOL


----------



## cdawall (Jun 13, 2013)

jmcslob said:


> OCZ is using a tweaked version of the barefoot 3 that runs slightly slower at a lower voltage and I think they are doing that because of their MLC memory is crap.
> 
> I think Intel, SanDisk and Kingston have kinda proven that its something else besides the Sandforce controllers that are at fault...sure they all had issues with em but not even close to what OCZ had and I think the reason for that is OCZ is cutting corners on its choice of MLC memory...
> 
> I'm not saying everything OCZ makes is crap I'm just saying I'd rather you find out if it is or not and I'll take your word for it and buy something else...LOL



Cheap (crap) MLC memory was at fault on the older drives the Vertex 4 and Vector series supposedly fixed all of those issues. Reviews are quite good for the Vector's and there are next to no "issues" floating around the web about them.


----------



## RCoon (Jun 13, 2013)

Samsung 840
Plextor M5 Pro
OCZ Vector
Toshiba's new line

Shouldnt look at any others, these are pretty much the best performers IN ACTUAL USEFUL TASKS. They are also the only SSD's that dont seem to *blatantly lie about their performance*.


----------



## ne6togadno (Jun 13, 2013)

RCoon said:


> Samsung 840
> Plextor M5 Pro
> OCZ Vector 4
> Toshiba's new line
> ...



4 is vertex, vector doesnt have numbers yet


----------



## cdawall (Jun 13, 2013)

ne6togadno said:


> 4 is vertex, vector doesnt have numbers yet



Correct and the Vector is a better drive.


----------



## RCoon (Jun 13, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Correct and the Vector is a better drive.



Cheers, edited.
Stand by my statement however. TPU has a large SSD review thread on here, very useful for this.


----------



## ne6togadno (Jun 13, 2013)

RCoon said:


> Cheers, edited.
> TPU has a large SSD review thread on here, very useful for this.



yap that is what i have used when i bought ssd.
now i am gathering $ for 2nd one. this time 256 vectror


----------



## Fourstaff (Jun 13, 2013)

I like my 840 non pro, write is bad in comparison to its peers but if you don't write a lot that will be my recommendation


----------



## qu4k3r (Jun 13, 2013)

First of all I'd like to thank for all your answers. I've read a lot of reviews of those models mentioned above. Most of them are focus on benchmarks that I don't really care. But there are a few with "real world tests" that I consider more important such as loading time for OS or programs. I also found that in some cases, some reviews favored certain models over others while others reviews do the opposite. However I can see they perform relatively similar, I mean the difference is not like day and night.

Said that, I think in terms of performance 3 runners up are...
Sandisk extreme 240gb >  Samsung 840 250gb ≈ Sandisk ultra plus 256gb.

With a tight price variation, only 4$.

Considering that once having format the real capacity changes:
256gb become 238gb
250gb become 232gb
240gb become 223gb

I think I'll grab Sandisk ultra plus 256gb.-


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jun 13, 2013)

RCoon said:


> Samsung 840
> Plextor M5 Pro
> OCZ Vector
> Toshiba's new line
> ...



Show me where SanDisk lied so I can prove to you that you're 100% wrong.
My SanDisk Extremes are dead on what they were claimed to be and even better than expected in RAID0 with less than 100 MB/s average combined speed loss over the controller giving me just under 1Gb/s speeds and they are as fast as expected IN ACTUAL USEFUL TASKS.


----------



## MasterInvader (Jun 13, 2013)

My 2cent´s; Corsair 
http://www.amazon.com/Corsair-Exclusive-Synchronous-2-5-Inch-CSSD-N256GB3-BK/dp/B00B2X312S/ref=sr_1_sc_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1371150448&sr=1-3-spell&keywords=corsair+sdd


----------



## drdeathx (Jun 13, 2013)

jmcslob said:


> Nope....They are showing up on the Indilinx controller as well
> PCs & Laptops, Laptop Accessories, Internal SSD, ...
> 
> They are already having issue with the Vertex 4's just like they have with every other model they have ever had...



Look at the vertex2 controller. They changed. Show the issues......


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jun 13, 2013)

Ill be the fish out of water here and say http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005D0AE8K/?tag=tec06d-20. I have the 120GB model and love it. 

He has 2 mushkin drives listd there. Not just the one thats slower. Im also willing to bet that its a Sata II drive and not a Sata III.


----------



## Arctucas (Jun 13, 2013)

jmcslob said:


> <SNIP>
> 
> That Mushkin is SLOW!!!!! 285MB/s read 275Mb/s right
> 
> <SNIP



This one? http://www.mushkin.com/Digital-Storage/SSDs/MKNSSDCR240GB.aspx

It looks pretty fast to me...


----------



## drdeathx (Jun 13, 2013)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Ill be the fish out of water here and say http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005D0AE8K/?tag=tec06d-20. I have the 120GB model and love it.
> 
> He has 2 mushkin drives listd there. Not just the one thats slower. Im also willing to bet that its a Sata II drive and not a Sata III.



SSD's are sata III unless there is something we don't know


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jun 14, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> SSD's are sata III unless there is something we don't know



 Computer Hardware, Hard Drives, SSD, Internal SSD...

Those are SATA II.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jun 14, 2013)

Arctucas said:


> This one? http://www.mushkin.com/Digital-Storage/SSDs/MKNSSDCR240GB.aspx
> 
> It looks pretty fast to me...



Honestly didn't notice the Chronos...Those are fast and I haven't seen anything bad about it...I'd buy it if I was in the market...good performance at a good price...


----------



## Arjai (Jun 14, 2013)

Kingston, proven quality.


----------



## drdeathx (Jun 14, 2013)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Computer Hardware, Hard Drives, SSD, Internal SSD...
> 
> Those are SATA II.



Tell you the truth, never knew they made sata II SSD's


----------



## cdawall (Jun 14, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> Tell you the truth, never knew they made sata II SSD's



I have two of them sitting in my desktop they have PATA ones as well they have been out longer than you think


----------



## Jetster (Jun 14, 2013)

The PATA one are expensive because they only made them for a short time. People want them for older laptops to give them a boost


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jun 14, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> Tell you the truth, never knew they made sata II SSD's



Well SSD's were around before SATA III (6GB/s) came along.


----------



## Ikaruga (Jun 14, 2013)

+1 for the v300 (from the list!)


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 14, 2013)

I voted Samsung 840 non pro 446 actual single read 270 write and 250 gb cheap as chips


----------

