# SSD cost-benefit doubt



## Tiamat (Feb 24, 2018)

Hello guys. I'll buy a 240/250Gb SSD and i'm trying to find the cost-benefit considering my options characteristics.

1) *SSD KINGSTON A400* - an entry level SSD with good read/write speeds considering its price. However it's a simple TLC SSD a suffer from low reliability. It's MTBF it's of 1M hours.

2) *SSD SAMSUMG EVO 850* - an excelent SSD. Great good and write speeds and more reliable than kingston. It uses the 3D TLC model and it's estimated MTBF is around 1.5M hours. (50% more than the Kingston model)


3)* Crucial MX300 275GB M.2*  - an m.2 model, but i'm not sure if would work with my *GA-AB350M-DS2*

The  price ratio between both of them is at 70%. In other words, if the Kingston model costs $140, the Samsung is at $200.

I dont believe that the read/write speeds could affect the performance in real world that much, but i'm indeed concerned about reliability. I know that simple TLC SSD are not recommended for workstations because of the low MTBF, and that is not my case. However, i do like to use my storage devices as long as i can -- i have hdd in use that have around 10 years . Therefore, i dont know if THAT MTBF difference could represent any real difference for an average home user. So, what would u do?

obs: i know that we have other models, but i can only buy a few options now. Other options that i found here was the:* GALAX GAMER SSD L 240GB S11, the WD GREEN 240gb, SANDISK 240GB PLUS, CRUCIAL BX200 240GB*


----------



## fullinfusion (Feb 24, 2018)

spend the extra and do yourself a favor and get the Samsung drive. You won't regret it!

Kingston is meh where Samsung is a HELL YA drive!


----------



## Tiamat (Feb 24, 2018)

@fullinfusion  Do u know if the *Crucial MX300 275GB M.2* - an m.2 model - can work with the *GA-AB350M-DS2?*

*I found this (attach file) but i'm not sure, because the gigabyte spec site does not mention m.2 neither pci-e 3.0 *


----------



## m&m's (Feb 24, 2018)

No your board doesn't support M.2 SSDs.

Get a Crucial MX500. 5 years warranty and cheaper than Samsung equivalents.


----------



## Tiamat (Feb 24, 2018)

> *I found this (attach file) but i'm not sure, because the gigabyte spec site does not mention m.2 neither pci-e 3.0*
> 
> *Attachments*



Can u check this info @m&m's ?


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Feb 24, 2018)

the whole MTBF between MLC and TLC is grossly exaggerated. for commercial use they should last  years and years before failure. Unless you need to write a few terabytes of data every day, there is no need to worry


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 24, 2018)

Tiamat said:


> Therefore, i dont know if THAT MTBF difference could represent any real difference for an average home user. So, what would u do?



MTBF is an absolutely horrible way of rating SSD reliability.  The TBW(Total Bytes Written) is the best way to determine the reliability of the drive.  With a HDD, MTBF means something, because even if the drive isn't being used, it is still spinning so there is still wear on the drive.  But an SSD only has wear when there is data written to it.



m&m's said:


> Get a Crucial MX500. 5 years warranty and cheaper than Samsung equivalents.



I agree with this.  The MX500 is a very good option.


----------



## Tiamat (Feb 24, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> MTBF is an absolutely horrible way of rating SSD reliability. The TBW(Total Bytes Written) is the best way to determine the reliability of the drive. With a HDD, MTBF means something, because even if the drive isn't being used, it is still spinning so there is still wear on the drive. But an SSD only has wear when there is data written to it.



Do u know that would be the difference for those SSDs in this case?




newtekie1 said:


> I agree with this. The MX500 is a very good option


 The price here is very similar with the Samsung EVO model -- i'm not from US


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 24, 2018)

Tiamat said:


> Do u know that would be the difference for those SSDs in this case?



Kingston A400 240GB - 80TB Total Bytes Written
Samsung 850 EVO 250GB - 75TB Total Bytes Written


----------



## Hood (Feb 24, 2018)

I have used the best and the cheapest, and there is a very noticeable difference in the feel of the user experience.  The cheap ones often feel almost as slow as mechanical hard drives, and the best ones feel so much faster and "snappy".  The Samsung drives are worth it.


----------



## Toothless (Feb 24, 2018)

Get the 850 EVO, worth every penny.


----------



## Tiamat (Feb 24, 2018)

OMG, when i just assume i'll get Kingston, u come and tell me this??



Hood said:


> have used the best and the cheapest, and there is a very noticeable difference in the feel of the user experienc





Toothless said:


> Get the 850 EVO, worth every penny



hahaha i don't know what to do 
@Hood did u actually saw the A400 model from kingston? (and not the v300 ou UV400... they're similar but the a400 is much better)


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 24, 2018)

Hood said:


> I have used the best and the cheapest, and there is a very noticeable difference in the feel of the user experience. The cheap ones often feel almost as slow as mechanical hard drives, and the best ones feel so much faster and "snappy". The Samsung drives are worth it.



The cheapest ones are likely DRAMless, and yes those are noticeable slower.  They are still significantly better than an HDD, but noticeably slower than other SSDs.  I wouldn't say Samsung drives are worth the money they ask for them though, there are other drives that are usually cheaper, offer better features, and the same performance.



Tiamat said:


> OMG, when i just assume i'll get Kingston, u come and tell me this??



After doing a little more research on the A400, I wouldn't buy it.  It is a DRAMless SSD, which means it will be noticeably slower than a SSD that has a DRAM.  If the MX500 is the same price as the 850 EVO, I'd go with the MX500.


----------



## Tiamat (Feb 24, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> If the MX500 is the same price as the 850 EVO, I'd go with the MX500.



It's actually a little cheaper. Why would u choose that?

@newtekie1


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 25, 2018)

Tiamat said:


> It's actually a little cheaper. Why would u choose that?
> 
> @newtekie1


Virtually identical performance, and better features like power loss protection.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Feb 25, 2018)

Either get the Samsung or the crucial ,but I'd recommend that you stick with sata, instead of M.2. Its what id do, and crucials are great ssd's, i have a couple 850 evo's and yea theyre great too, but id say crucials mx line are a nice price/perf ssd, again id go sata.  You really couldn't have picked a better time either ,because the Samsung 850EVO is selling @ it's launch price of $140 in many retailers.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Feb 25, 2018)

Note that the Kingston is a DRAM-less drive, i.e. it'll use system RAM to cache writes.
The performance actually seems decent for a DRAM-less drive, judging by the benchmarks here - http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/kingston-a400-120-gib-ssd-review/5/
However, this is also part of the reason why it's cheaper and in general, DRAM-less SSD's are never going to perform as well as a drive with built in DRAM cache, which is still something like 90% of SSDs on the market.
Note that this also means that a chunk of your RAM will be locked into duty as SSD cache, since the SSD controller will request a certain amount of RAM from the system. If the SSD controller doesn't get this RAM, the performance will drop.

You don't have any other options available to you?


----------



## xkm1948 (Feb 25, 2018)

MX500. Best bang for your buck. I love Crucial's SSD. Good reliability and good driver/firmware support.


----------



## Tiamat (Feb 25, 2018)

newtekie1 said:


> features like power loss protection.


@newtekie1  I didnt know that, ty 



jboydgolfer said:


> and crucials are great ssd's, i have a couple 850 evo's and yea theyre great too, but id say crucials mx line are a nice price/perf ssd, again id go sata.


@jboydgolfer if u consider only the performance, wich one is better in day-to-day? I can get any of them and the difference of price is less than 1%...



TheLostSwede said:


> ote that this also means that a chunk of your RAM will be locked into duty as SSD cache, since the SSD controller will request a certain amount of RAM from the system. If the SSD controller doesn't get this RAM, the performance will drop.


@TheLostSwede  I guess i wont get the kingston model so. I've checked that review too, but u're right! Unfortenelly other options include only :* GALAX GAMER SSD L 240GB S11, the WD GREEN 240gb, SANDISK 240GB PLUS, CRUCIAL BX200 240GB*



xkm1948 said:


> MX500. Best bang for your buck. I love Crucial's SSD. Good reliability and good driver/firmware support.


@xkm1948  BTW, Beautiful puppy X0


----------



## cucker tarlson (Feb 25, 2018)

My vote goes to mx500. I read the reviews, it's just as good as 850 evo, but cheaper. Anything SATA based that's worth paying extra over that mx500 drive is 850 pro with 10 year warranty, but that comes with a huge price premium.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 25, 2018)

TheLostSwede said:


> Note that the Kingston is a DRAM-less drive, i.e. it'll use system RAM to cache writes.
> The performance actually seems decent for a DRAM-less drive, judging by the benchmarks here - http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/kingston-a400-120-gib-ssd-review/5/
> However, this is also part of the reason why it's cheaper and in general, DRAM-less SSD's are never going to perform as well as a drive with built in DRAM cache, which is still something like 90% of SSDs on the market.
> Note that this also means that a chunk of your RAM will be locked into duty as SSD cache, since the SSD controller will request a certain amount of RAM from the system. If the SSD controller doesn't get this RAM, the performance will drop.
> ...


Im not going to dissagree but to add that samsung evis and pro can use samsung magicians rapid mode , using system memory and software to intelligently cache drive use , it works well and is one reason to go samsung , maybe.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Feb 25, 2018)

Tiamat said:


> wich one is better in day-to-day?



go with the 850Evo In my opinion. I have been runnign them for 3 or so years, and they are rock solid, and fast aF.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Feb 25, 2018)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Im not going to dissagree but to add that samsung evis and pro can use samsung magicians rapid mode , using system memory and software to intelligently cache drive use , it works well and is one reason to go samsung , maybe.



I think you misunderstand, the Kingston drive doesn't have any DRAM inside the SSD, which the Samsung drives do. This DRAM is used for things like the mapping table which helps speed up writing data to the actual flash memory.

I wasn't talking about some kind of pre-cache in system memory before the data is sent to the SSD, this is something entirely different and it's something some SSD manufacturers offers a software feature for their SSD's.



Tiamat said:


> @newtekie1  I didnt know that, ty
> 
> @TheLostSwede  I guess i wont get the kingston model so. I've checked that review too, but u're right! Unfortenelly other options include only :* GALAX GAMER SSD L 240GB S11, the WD GREEN 240gb, SANDISK 240GB PLUS, CRUCIAL BX200 240GB*



None of those options are particularly good and most of them are really quite old by now. You can't get the BX300?

The MX300 doesn't have power loss protection, or at least not in the sense that enterprise drives do. It's too long to explain here, but please see - https://www.anandtech.com/show/8528/micron-m600-128gb-256gb-1tb-ssd-review-nda-placeholder
There's a good explanation there as to how the thought at Crucial/Micron went on this consumer grade power loss protection.
The simple explanation is that the power loss protection in this case has to do with how TLC NAND is written to and what Crucial/Micron has done, is to make sure that all three cells have their data written properly in the case of a power loss situation, so there isn't any data corruption.
It might save you losing data, but it might not, it really depends on the situation, since it won't save data in the SSD DRAM and write that to the flash in case of a power outage, like enterprise SSD's do.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 25, 2018)

TheLostSwede said:


> I think you misunderstand, the Kingston drive doesn't have any DRAM inside the SSD, which the Samsung drives do. This DRAM is used for things like the mapping table which helps speed up writing data to the actual flash memory.
> 
> I wasn't talking about some kind of pre-cache in system memory before the data is sent to the SSD, this is something entirely different and it's something some SSD manufacturers offers a software feature for their SSD's.
> 
> ...


No, i understand fully thats why i said wanted to add, not only do Samsung have inbuilt ram cache but they offer software that ALSO accelerates its use , and quite considerably ,I used it , but my Samy evo 850 512 died so im hard-pressed to deffo say buy one , i think a short killed mine but don't Know so I am on the edge.
The two Samsung basics(didn't blow in the same short) im using dont support rapid and i have noticed but not massively.
No one else mentioned rapid mode on Samsung ,so I was providing info while agreeing with you, sorry that wasn't clear.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 25, 2018)

Any SSD will be faster than a metal record player/writer.

If your money is so tight go to what you can, otherwise save up.

Personal suggestion is the Samsung 840 Pro, 850 Pro, 860 Pro or Crucial MX300, MX500 for SATA. I'd say the same for M.2 from both companies.


----------



## xrror (Feb 26, 2018)

Since you're stuck in the 240GB range, it's not really going to matter between the Samsung or Crucial. (technical reason - those drive sizes aren't big enough to have enough flash chips inside for the SSD controllers to reach full performance - don't worry about it).

Just DON'T get the Kingston lol. After the marketing wank they pulled with the SSDNow V300, I'd not ever trust them again. Plus as others have said, it actually IS slower enough to notice - don't waste your money, even if it's way cheaper.


----------



## Tiamat (Feb 26, 2018)

Hey, i fount another option;


SANDISK ULTRA II SSD

Sandisk seems to have warranty in my country (while Samsumg and Crucial are not very clear about that here)...

The performance should be similar?



TheLostSwede said:


> ou can't get the BX300?



Actually, i found it too


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 26, 2018)

Tiamat said:


> Hey, i fount another option;
> 
> 
> SANDISK ULTRA II SSD
> ...



What country?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 26, 2018)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> No, i understand fully thats why i said wanted to add, not only do Samsung have inbuilt ram cache but they offer software that ALSO accelerates its use , and quite considerably ,


Crucial’s software also accelerated cache use with Momentum Cache.

@Tiamat The Sandisk SSD’s are very good value/performance.  I have a number of them.


----------



## xrror (Feb 26, 2018)

Tiamat said:


> Hey, i fount another option


lol okay man, we need to know what your budget is, and what region of the world you are (because pricing can vary drastically around the world)

To answer your other question, I've had good luck with SanDisk drives and I'd recommend them. Also had good luck with the Ultra II's, but only with the 240GB and 960GB versions. They're slower but solid budget options. Basically the Ultra II "wins" if it's low enough cost to let you "move up" one capacity point.

Basically you're looking at 240/256GB drives right? If an Ultra II 480/512GB drive is priced low enough you can get it _instead_ definitely get it.

Speaking of breaking into the next capacity bracket. I don't know if Amazon's pricing will be the same in your region, but... BUT. If you can wait long enough to save about $390 US dollars (I know that's a lot, but) check this out:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01LB05YOO/

It's not the fastest, but 2TB (!) ... From what I understand it's basically an OEM Crucial MX300 2TB drive.

This might not help Tiamat, but I thought others might like this! I'm seriously considering getting one if I can swing it after taxes hehe


----------



## Tiamat (Feb 26, 2018)

eidairaman1 said:


> What country?


Brazil


----------



## eidairaman1 (Feb 26, 2018)

Tiamat said:


> Brazil



Ask them here

https://www.samsung.com/us/support/contact/


----------



## Tiamat (Feb 26, 2018)

eidairaman1 said:


> Ask them here
> 
> https://www.samsung.com/us/support/contact/



I didt it on friday. They said that seagate owns that part of theyr company now... So i asked seagate. They told me to ask Samsung


----------



## xrror (Feb 26, 2018)

Tiamat said:


> I didt it on friday. They said that seagate owns that part of theyr company now... So i asked seagate. They told me to ask Samsung


lol! Can you give a list/links of preferred etailers from that area? Assuming that you're buying online instead of a local shop.

That way we can search around for SSD drives on websites you'd actually want to order from (and hopefully you trust with your money/debit/credit/bankcard/sold organs/etc =D)


----------



## Klopo (Apr 4, 2018)

I suggest you to read this https://3dnews.ru/938764/page-1.html russian site testing bunch of  SSD's endurance before you buy.
I regret to bought Adata SU800 after knew the endurance is under Adata claim.
Now even more regret after f/w upgrade, it freezing at bios: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...-boot-but-it-still-working-in-windows.243011/


----------



## nomdeplume (May 3, 2018)

Now that was a fun read.


----------



## Vayra86 (May 3, 2018)

Tiamat said:


> Hey, i fount another option;
> 
> 
> SANDISK ULTRA II SSD
> ...



If you want to focus on quality in consumer SSDs there are two go-to SSD right now:

Samsung EVO
Crucial MX500

Ignore the rest or go entry level for a worthwhile price gap. For regular use they will all do just fine, most workloads hardly differ between SSDs in terms of performance and endurance of all recent drives is good enough. If you were to go entry level I would strongly suggest the BX300 above most others. Crucial brings a satisfying degree of quality and overall performance to each segment.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (May 3, 2018)

I remember a year or so ago the first life cycles of SSD's expired and sites including TPU did a longevity overview...
Samsung can out on top narrowly beating SanDisk and then with quite a bit of difference crucial followed....

I have never understood why people recommend Crucial when they are usually the same price as Samsung but don't last as long as SanDisk (WD now)...

I have owned 2 Crucial SSD's....
There wasn't anything special about them over any of the cheaper mid range drives... Absolutely nothing.

Currently I have an Inland Pro SSD and it really reminds me of crucial... Only difference between it and a Crucial SSD is about $45

I have 2 NVMe drives and 2 SSD's currently....

With my last build I ran out of room for drives..... I then gave away my crappy SSD's... Both were Crucial


----------



## Vayra86 (May 3, 2018)

jmcslob said:


> I remember a year or so ago the first life cycles of SSD's expired and sites including TPU did a longevity overview...
> Samsung can out on top narrowly beating SanDisk and then with quite a bit of difference crucial followed....
> 
> I have never understood why people recommend Crucial when they are usually the same price as Samsung but don't last as long as SanDisk (WD now)...
> ...



Crucial used to get recommendations because they implemented power safe caps that significantly reduce the risk of data in case of power loss - and the loss of sectors accompanying such scenarios and right now their MX500 beats the Samsung drives on price/perf by a good margin.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (May 3, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Crucial used to get recommendations because they implemented power safe caps that significantly reduce the risk of data in case of power loss - and the loss of sectors accompanying such scenarios and right now their MX500 beats the Samsung drives on price/perf by a good margin.


You'll have to forgive me but I heard this before with OCZ....


----------



## Vayra86 (May 3, 2018)

jmcslob said:


> You'll have to forgive me but I heard this before with OCZ....



OCZ, you mean the company that released the most horrible SSD controllers in history and went bust and got a new owner not too long after? Yeah I know 

Crucial's stuff is real however
http://www.storagereview.com/crucial_mx100_ssd_review


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (May 3, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> OCZ, you mean the company that released the most horrible SSD controllers in history and went bust and got a new owner not too long after? Yeah I know
> 
> Crucial's stuff is real however
> http://www.storagereview.com/crucial_mx100_ssd_review


Again don't get me wrong Crucial is in the top 3 for SSD's imo but not before WD (SanDisk) and those are usually cheaper...
But a 5 year warranty is better than 3... And since you can only get 5 year warranty with WD bkack NVMe I regress...

I had an MX100 and MX300.... Both were good but neither was as good as anything else I had at the time... Even PNY drives were sightly better....ouch


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 3, 2018)

Tiamat said:


> @fullinfusion  Do u know if the *Crucial MX300 275GB M.2* - an m.2 model - can work with the *GA-AB350M-DS2?*
> 
> *I found this (attach file) but i'm not sure, because the gigabyte spec site does not mention m.2 neither pci-e 3.0 *


If you are considering the MX300, then go MX500.  It is faster, has better sustained speeds, and is selling cheaper most places than the recently replaced MX300.


----------



## Arjai (May 3, 2018)

I went through this a few years ago and got a 300 series Crucial. Flawless after more than four years and I crunch numbers on WCG, daily 24/7. The drive is still 100% healthy.

The Crucial was significantly cheaper, than the Samsung, and has work great since day one.


----------



## coonbro (May 3, 2018)

I would agree the MX 500 is a deal today  at  69 bucks and  its one of the few that claims / offers power loss  protection  most don't .  now the older MX 300  had hardware / caps  not 100% sure what the mx 500 uses  but its claimed

''*Integrated Power Loss Immunity: *Avoid unintended data loss when the power unexpectedly goes out. This built-in feature of our new NAND protects your data swiftly and efficiently, so if your system suddenly shuts down, you keep all your saved work.''

http://www.crucial.com/wcsstore/CrucialSAS/pdf/product-flyer/crucial-mx500-ssd-productflyer-en.pdf

mx300
The pads for the power loss protection capacitors are almost all populated
https://www.anandtech.com/show/10274/the-crucial-mx300-750gb-ssd-review-microns-3d-nand-arrives

may not be important to you or most but seems like something I would want at the near same price as those that don't even offer.    mx 300 is getting hard to find  and the 275 was about 85 bucks


----------



## John Naylor (May 4, 2018)

Its really about what it's worth to you ... just don't try going to the boss and use a cost benefit analysis to try and make a case for adding SSDs to all of the office PCs cause ya will never be able to make it.  Problem isn't that SSDs aren't faster ,,, problem i the user is the bottleneck.  No legal secretary every typed an extra legal brief before 5:00 pm quiting time.  NO CAD dude, ever completed a floor plan in AutoCAD 2D / 3D because he got an SSD.  No gamer ever reach a further way point because they had an SSD.  There are instances where SSDs actually do provide productivity increases, but that's not really a "desktop" thing.  There are things ya can do on the desktop that prove the SSD is faster... like moving 40 GB of files... but as it's not an everyday thing, ...

However, my thought is if ya gonna get one, grab a Samsung Evo and be done with it.  We have Evos and SSHDs in every build and cam boot off either ... I like to switch the boot drives and see if anyone notices :0 ... they don't.


----------



## coonbro (May 4, 2018)

'' just don't try going to the boss and use a cost benefit analysis to try and make a case for adding SSDs to all of the office PCs cause ya will never be able to make it.''

that would seem to make having a ssd that with some ''real'' power loss data protection  a tad bit better .   over ones that don't try to promote any at all ?  that may help keep the boss looking cross eyed at you when a power issue at the office looses work  due to that .   

just seem a feature  I would want  in a ssd that similar  in price and storage cap.  it is flash memory after all in the end


----------



## RejZoR (May 4, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> OCZ, you mean the company that released the most horrible SSD controllers in history and went bust and got a new owner not too long after? Yeah I know
> 
> Crucial's stuff is real however
> http://www.storagereview.com/crucial_mx100_ssd_review



They mostly used SandForce which wasn't theirs and Indelinx they bought later were pretty good actually. And so was SandForce. It just had its limitations and issues. Like most controllers of that time to be honest.


----------



## Tiamat (Jul 9, 2018)

Hello guys! It has some time i've posted here, but i would like to tell the end of this questions, so i can help people that eventually get here seeking for the same doubts...

Actually i bought the Samsung 850 EVO model, and i'm very satisfied with it. On the other hand, i recently bought the KINGSTON A400 model for other PC, and i can say that, despite it's not as fast as the Samgung model, it's REALLY good. The difference for the daily use is not very significant...


----------



## AsRock (Jul 9, 2018)

My 2 850's have given me no issue's what so ever, if you do pick a Samsung i do believe you might have to keep the original box, not 100% sure on that though as i never had a issue with mine.



Toothless said:


> Get the 850 EVO, worth every penny.


----------



## John Naylor (Jul 9, 2018)

We're at the point where I am no longer concerned about SSD reliability.  That was not always true.  e have experienced 3 SSD failures, 2 of which were on one box where the SSD warranty replacement also failed.  This is latest real world data set for SSD failures and lists the failures for two consecutive 6 months reporting periods and includes RMAs fpr SSDs that were in use for 6 - 12 months ... so it is not a lifetime thing, hust ones that were at least 6 and less than 12 months os usage.

Samsung 0,17% (contre 0,20%)
Intel 0,19% (contre 0,27%)
Crucial 0,31% (contre 0,28%)
Sandisk 0,31% (contre 0,62%)
Corsair 0,36% (contre 1,67%)
Kingston 0,44% (contre 0,29%)
As for cost benefit analysis there is none that can be made.  You simply can not achieve a postive return on investment outside very specialized applications.   If you are doing video editing or rendering in a production setting, yes large SSDs are the way to go.  But in the office or home, recognize that no legal secretary ever typed an extra legal brief, no 2D / 3D CAD operator ever finished the floor plan for an extra room no gamer ever reached a further checkpoint because they had an SSD.

If you were to run say an MS Office benchmark whereby it contains a script of 1277 actions, yes you would see an easy win for the SSD... but in the real world a human has to make a keystroke between every one of those actions.  It's like a ferarri and bicycle going across manhattan mid town and getting stuck at every light.  Doesn't matter that the ferarri gets to the light long before the bicycle does, both have to wait for the light to turn green.

I had an emplyee once make the case that he could be more efficiet.  So since he was an in an engineering office, I asked him yo do an engineering analysis.  he went online and determined that a SSD booted Windows 5.5 seconds faster than a HD.  So the argument went:

220 work days x 5.5 seconds / 360 seconds per hour was 0.33 hours
0.33 hours x 3 year lifetime x $60 / hr billing rate ... he'd save $60 ... that didn't pay for the SSD

But more over... his workstation as visible from my office ... the day after he asked (day he did the calc) he arrived, took of his jacket, placed on back of chair, turned on PC ... asked if anyone made coffee yet ... chatted w/ colleagues while coffee was brewing and sat down at his desk about 9 minutes after he arrived.  The extra 5.5 seconds was not gonna win his argument.  I also kept track of my activities that day.

Turned on my lappi and while it was booting, i reviewed my phone messages, calling folks back.... 13 minutes later, all calls had been returned and I was just about done returning emails.  Having opened the email program right after dialing the 1st call and waiting for it to pick up.   I had prints on my desk w/ field measurements so I opened AutoCAD while reviewing the prints.  Program and file were opened and  ready long before I finished reviewing the prints to ascertain what work had to be done.

So yes, you can run a disk benchmark to determine if you ever had to transfer a GB of data from 1 HD on your PC to another... but how often or have you ever done that ?  You can ask Chrome to open 100 windows and see a clear advantage from the SSD but what would that accomplish ?   You can sometimes see a clear advantage in game loading times, but this is often negated by server handshaking.  But even so, when i watch my son's playing... the game is launched, then they are opening associated web site , opening discord, getting headphones on etc and the game is sitting their waiting by time you are ready to play.

We ran blind tests on same box that was bootable (boot time in seco0nds in parenthesis) from SSD (15.6), SSHD (16.5) and HD (21.2) .... 5 users worked and played on the box over a 6 week period.  Each moring the machine BIOS was set to boot from a different drive and users were asked to comment if they noticed any performance issues.  One user on one day reported that "boot might have been slower today, not really sure".  Test was later done on 2 laptops.... one with SSD + 7200 rom HD .. other with 7200 rpm SSHD ... no one ever noticed which was which.  BTW, HD was 7200 rpm > 5 years old.

No I am not making a case against SSDs, we put one (SSD + SSHD) in every box if user budget allows.  But if you want to make a case for one via cost benefit analysis, it can't be done.    Won't be long i think tho before we don't even consider the cost.  We always had OS, temp files, programs and data on separate partitions.  The main reason being if a drive went south or OS got fudged, it greatly simplified restoration.  Having an SSD is just like having that separate partition. My personal fav situation is twin SSDs w/ Twin SSHDs as it allows

SSD1 - OS and programs
SSD2 -  Anything that might benefit from the speed advantage

SSHD1 - Data Files
SSHD2 - Software mirror of SSHD1

I'd love to hear from folks who have had an experience where their work productivity  (outside specialized workstation apps using huge files) was measurably impacted by an SSD as opposed to an SSHD or even a HD (we haven't bought a HD in over 7 years).  We have tried loading CAD files from SSD and SSHD, measured it to the tenth of a second and found no differences.


----------



## Arjai (Jul 10, 2018)

I went from a low power 5400 rpm to a 300 series Crucial SSD. Even when the HDD was freshly defragged and devoid of excess, the SSD on SATA 2, Booted MUCH, MUCH faster. This thing even had a mini 24GB SSD card in it, it has since died and is now part of my keychain. Downloading games from steam, take minutes, not an hour+. So, for me? It is quite convenient. Since I don't have a lot of time to play games and don't keep them all on my SSD. None of my other computers have an SSD. I only occasionally surf the web on them, they are mostly just WCG Crunchers. I can tell the difference in boot times but, mostly the delays on them are because of the Linux servers being laggy. Over all, I like my SSD. I got a decent deal on it and it is still running strong. That HDD wasn't a hundred percent, in less than 2 years! Just kept getting slower and slower. I am actually toying with getting another SSD, bigger, and use this one in another build. 

Mostly though, I agree with your findings. I like the quiet and less heat, and the quick boot's. And the read times on some saved videos.


----------



## Flyordie (Jul 10, 2018)

https://www.extremetech.com/computi...-most-reliable-massive-study-sheds-some-light

Basically... Samsung for longevity.  The Samsung 840 made it to 2.2 Petabytes written before failing completely. Intel's SSD committed suicide. (and they still do..)


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 10, 2018)

850 Pro made it to 9.1PB. and it was the 256GB one  means the drive could write its own capacity 35.5 thousand times. I've got three of those (256,256,512) that I'll probably give to my grandchildren some day.
We're at the point where this new multi layer TLC can take petabytes. It's both faster and mode durable than planar MLC.


----------



## coonbro (Jul 10, 2018)

John Naylor said:


> We're at the point where I am no longer concerned about SSD reliability.  That was not always true.  e have experienced 3 SSD failures, 2 of which were on one box where the SSD warranty replacement also failed.  This is latest real world data set for SSD failures and lists the failures for two consecutive 6 months reporting periods and includes RMAs fpr SSDs that were in use for 6 - 12 months ... so it is not a lifetime thing, hust ones that were at least 6 and less than 12 months os usage.
> 
> Samsung 0,17% (contre 0,20%)
> Intel 0,19% (contre 0,27%)
> ...




the only old platter drives  I don't use  are the older ide ribbon one   . do they fail ? ya, but of the boo koos of platter drives I had over the years  I only had 2 that just failed   [I got 8 platter drives I can use at any time  [sata] and 4 ide drives  I use in a old 2002 rig  still going as well as the day i installed them  .

would I buy a ssd ? sure  but these platter drives yet to give me reason to spend .   like you also said  booting time don't seem to be a factor for me   its not like I got to go grab a cup of coffee or twittle my thumbs  waiting on  it to  .   takes me more time to put in my pass word then windows takes to boot to desk top    . then there was a review test that showed the ssd are no faster in games  then platter use  , so big deal if the ssd boots to windows 3.5 sec faster .  that the time I need to find my pen on this desk  if not more


----------



## dgianstefani (Jul 10, 2018)

An SSD will last you 10+ years in normal use case scenario.  I'd go for the 860 evo, it's about 10% faster than the 850 evo and has a higher TBW rating.


----------

