|
Alereon posted:Yes, though if possible shrink the partition to 400GB or so, I'm not sure how partitioning works on the PS4. Do Sandforce drives hit a wall of performance at that point? Or are we just trying to create our own huge overprovision (is that even possible) or is it just in the interest of keeping 20% free?
|
# ? Jun 11, 2014 17:39 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 12:16 |
|
Lolcano Eruption posted:Do Sandforce drives hit a wall of performance at that point? Or are we just trying to create our own huge overprovision (is that even possible) or is it just in the interest of keeping 20% free?
|
# ? Jun 11, 2014 17:59 |
|
Are hybrid drives pretty popular with OEMs these days? I'm seeing quite a few on ebay that are listed as OEM pulls.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2014 18:17 |
|
Hybrid drives don't seem to be too common, OEMs tend to use very small SSDs that can be used to hold the hibernation and boot files along with the various Intel chipset features like Rapid Start (but not Smart Response Technology SSD caching, which seems dead).
|
# ? Jun 11, 2014 19:07 |
|
Alereon posted:Hybrid drives don't seem to be too common, OEMs tend to use very small SSDs that can be used to hold the hibernation and boot files along with the various Intel chipset features like Rapid Start (but not Smart Response Technology SSD caching, which seems dead). Doesn't a hybrid drive take are of all of that with zero changes to laptop hardware? I figured what was the logic.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2014 19:37 |
|
FWIW I think the OWC legacy PATA SSD is kinda lame. It just comes with a 2.5>3.5 bracket and a separate SATA>PATA adapter. I found this thing which seems like a much better integrated solution: I'm sure the market is zero for these things but hey, SSDs are cheap and old computers are fun.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2014 21:18 |
|
Shaocaholica posted:Doesn't a hybrid drive take are of all of that with zero changes to laptop hardware? I figured what was the logic.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2014 21:34 |
|
DrDork posted:WD Black with the 1TB + 128GB SSD in a single package, but that drive only works under Windows, and is pretty pricey for what it is. Doesn't that drive just show up as two separate drives?
|
# ? Jun 11, 2014 21:41 |
|
Bob Morales posted:Doesn't that drive just show up as two separate drives?
|
# ? Jun 11, 2014 21:58 |
|
Shaocaholica posted:Doesn't a hybrid drive take are of all of that with zero changes to laptop hardware? I figured what was the logic.
|
# ? Jun 11, 2014 23:29 |
|
Just installed a 250gb 840 EVO and it's awesome but a lot of fuckin around trying to get windows to install on it.. turns out it was failing because I had other drives connected to pc while doing it. disconnecting them while install fixed everything. un-awesome
|
# ? Jun 12, 2014 05:29 |
|
So I just bought a Samsung 840 Evo 250GB, am I reading that right that when I install Windows 8 I can just only format and partition 80% of the drive and leave the other 20% unpartitioned? That way I don't have to worry about overfilling it? I mean it sounds like it's unnecessary, but if it's a thing I can do, is there any particular reason not to?
|
# ? Jun 12, 2014 05:38 |
|
Doomsayer posted:So I just bought a Samsung 840 Evo 250GB, am I reading that right that when I install Windows 8 I can just only format and partition 80% of the drive and leave the other 20% unpartitioned? That way I don't have to worry about overfilling it?
|
# ? Jun 12, 2014 05:47 |
|
Welmu posted:Install Windows to the entire partition. Then install Samsung Magician, enable RAPID & set over-provisioning to 20%. Oh neat, thanks!
|
# ? Jun 12, 2014 05:50 |
|
echinopsis posted:Just installed a 250gb 840 EVO and it's awesome but a lot of fuckin around trying to get windows to install on it.. turns out it was failing because I had other drives connected to pc while doing it. disconnecting them while install fixed everything. un-awesome I don't know why to this day windows still insists on dicking around with all connected drives during an install. Even if it didn't, I'd still recommend removing all drives as a precaution.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2014 07:10 |
|
dud root posted:I don't know why to this day windows still insists on dicking around with all connected drives during an install. Even if it didn't, I'd still recommend removing all drives as a precaution.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2014 07:13 |
|
dud root posted:I don't know why to this day windows still insists on dicking around with all connected drives during an install. Even if it didn't, I'd still recommend removing all drives as a precaution. It's hosed up though, there is zero reason to think to do so. At the very least windows install could give you some kind of clue as to why it was failing. I googled for it etc and was coming up with all sorts of things about MBR vs GPT etc... Also since even from USB it takes a good 10 minutes or so for windows 7 to load files and get ready to install before you can even find out it'll fail.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2014 08:10 |
|
dud root posted:I don't know why to this day windows still insists on dicking around with all connected drives during an install. Even if it didn't, I'd still recommend removing all drives as a precaution. Ask me about the time my dad was reinstalling windows and ended up installing win2000 onto one of these 1 gb rewritable optical disks.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2014 11:30 |
|
Usually I get it installed on the correct hard drive and then one month later discover that it put the boot partition somewhere ridiculous. What do you mean you removed that ZIP drive? Tunga fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Jun 12, 2014 |
# ? Jun 12, 2014 11:39 |
|
Bob Morales posted:Did they gently caress up other drives like the C300 or just the M4? I know the V4 was a colossal fuckup but we'll forget that ever happened. The M500 has been solid. I think it isn't really fair to still hold off on purchasing one of their drives. Any of the early makers besides intel had at least one issue or two that were pretty major. At least physically they haven't cheaped out without telling anyone (kingston?). I've got 10 960GB at work, handful of 640GB of m500, one m550 1TB, and a 512GB mx100. They are pretty much the only ones I trust to handle and being able to rma if I had to outside of intel. If you ever had to rma something with samsung it isn't the most pleasant experience.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2014 12:59 |
|
Christobevii3 posted:If you ever had to rma something with samsung it isn't the most pleasant experience. My one experience with samsung RMA: Called them up to setup RMA after smoke started pouring out of my monitor, they agreed to cover it. A couple of weeks later I got a bill in the mail saying I can either pay X$ to have the broken monitor shipped back to me or X * 3 to have it fixed. I called them again and this time they claimed that was a normal/expected failure and they won't cover it.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2014 13:11 |
|
Ika posted:Ask me about the time my dad was reinstalling windows and ended up installing win2000 onto one of these 1 gb rewritable optical disks. Oh, gently caress Win2K's handling of removable disks during install. I wasted a week of my life trying reinstall it with no success - turned out if there's an ATAPI Zip drive attached (with no media present), install will fail with a worthless error code.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2014 13:47 |
|
Yeah I think I'll take my chances of a bad RMA experience with Samsung instead of buying drives from questionable manufacturers just so I can save some trivial amount
|
# ? Jun 12, 2014 15:22 |
|
Alereon posted:Neither are good drives, I'd strongly recommend you pick something that isn't known for severe reliability issues. If there's a store you're looking at post a link and we can provide some guidance. Thanks, ended up ordering 840 EVO for 27euro more.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2014 15:35 |
|
Is it a bad idea to buy a Sandisk Ultra plus? Amazon has the 256GB for $105. I just want a reliable SSD that doesn't need to be smoking fast, and I think I'd rather have MLC memory than the TLC stuff in the mid-range Samsung. The Anandtech review for it (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6553/sandisk-ultra-plus-ssd-review-256gb) is pretty positive, but given that it isn't on the recommended list I'm necessarily apprehensive. The only other SSD I've owned is a 128GB Intel 320 that has been fantastic.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2014 17:18 |
|
Naffer posted:Is it a bad idea to buy a Sandisk Ultra plus? Amazon has the 256GB for $105. I just want a reliable SSD that doesn't need to be smoking fast, and I think I'd rather have MLC memory than the TLC stuff in the mid-range Samsung. The Anandtech review for it (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6553/sandisk-ultra-plus-ssd-review-256gb) is pretty positive, but given that it isn't on the recommended list I'm necessarily apprehensive. The only other SSD I've owned is a 128GB Intel 320 that has been fantastic.
|
# ? Jun 12, 2014 17:21 |
|
Are these ever not on sale? 250GB Samsung 840 EVO 2.5" SATA III TLC Solid State Drive SSD $120 + Free Shipping http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/122508/ebay---250gb-samsung-840-evo-2.5-sata-iii-tlc-solid-state-drive-ssd
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 05:58 |
go3 posted:Yeah I think I'll take my chances of a bad RMA experience with Samsung instead of buying drives from questionable manufacturers just so I can save some trivial amount just because the OP hasn't been updated in ages doesn't mean the 840 Evo/Pro, Seagate 600/Pro and any recent Crucial drive aren't all pretty much amazing and interchangeable.
|
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 07:09 |
|
Straker posted:yes crucial is as bad as OCZ and you're tempting fate by... spending pretty much the same amount of money for the same product quote:Alereon hosed around with this message at May 31, 2014 around 03:20
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 15:47 |
|
The Samsung EVO 250GB is $10 cheaper ($129.99) on Newegg for the next twelve hours (8 AM to 8 PM Pacific) if anyone cares.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 16:52 |
|
Also Crucial never approved the RMA for my failed M4. I've waited three weeks. Guess I'll have to call and complain today now that I have time. Take from that what you will.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 17:15 |
yeah I saw that but edited doesn't mean updated who knows what was changed but it is no longer the case that everything besides the 840 evo and Intel drives are crap, that's all edit: also for cheap options there's some PNY SSD that's been going for like 35 cents a gig after rebate and is allegedly decent, but I'll be hosed if I can remember the model offhand Straker fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 17:56 |
|
Straker posted:edit: also for cheap options there's some PNY SSD that's been going for like 35 cents a gig after rebate and is allegedly decent, but I'll be hosed if I can remember the model offhand The Optima is their low end one, XLR8 is the higher end one.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 18:10 |
|
Bob Morales posted:The Optima is their low end one, XLR8 is the higher end one.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 19:40 |
|
Straker posted:yeah I saw that but edited doesn't mean updated who knows what was changed but it is no longer the case that everything besides the 840 evo and Intel drives are crap, that's all The OP is updated pretty regularly, it includes the SanDisk Extreme II at the high-end and some cheap PNY XLR8/XLR8 Pro Sandforce options at the mid-range and low-end, in addition to Samsung and Intel. I added a mention of the Crucial MX100 since people are going to be talking about it so much. Alereon fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Jun 13, 2014 |
# ? Jun 13, 2014 19:46 |
|
Alereon posted:There's a vast number of drives out there that are crap for reasons that are either more or less subtle. Don't buy drives with Phison or JMicron controllers because they suck, Marvell doesn't offer stock firmware so most drives based on Marvell controllers use half-assed in-house firmware (typified by Plextor), I don't see any SK Hynix drives competing anymore (like the Seagate 600), so that pretty much leaves some companies using Sandforce controllers and competing over who can cut the most corners to make the cheapest, crappiest drive (Kingston, ADATA). Benchmarks don't tell you if a drive sucks, and reviewers don't always know what to look for, and even competent reviewers don't get drives to review if they outright say they suck. If you think I'm overlooking a drive that is actually decent (and a decent value) please let me know and I will investigate it. I just want to throw out a big thanks to you Alereon. Before I read the poo poo out of your thread, I was recommending OCZ drives...yech. Thankfully nobody who's bought one on my advice has been burned badly yet, so, yay. But yeah - most reviewers just benchmark speeds and go "YAY GREAT DRIVE" without knowing the tech behind/quality of the flash. Alereon knows his poo poo, and I wouldn't argue with his recommendations.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 19:57 |
|
Siochain posted:I just want to throw out a big thanks to you Alereon. Before I read the poo poo out of your thread, I was recommending OCZ drives...yech. Thankfully nobody who's bought one on my advice has been burned badly yet, so, yay. But yeah - most reviewers just benchmark speeds and go "YAY GREAT DRIVE" without knowing the tech behind/quality of the flash. Alereon knows his poo poo, and I wouldn't argue with his recommendations.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 20:13 |
|
Alereon posted:Don't feel too bad, OCZ was good before they were poo poo and that's why it was such a big deal. Mushkin drives were good for a long time and all the samples I saw had branded Intel NAND, and then one day reviewers started seeing mSATA drives with unbranded NAND chips and I stopped recommending them, but chances are they did the switch in their 2.5" drives first where it was hidden inside the case. That's one of the reasons I try to only recommend drives from the NAND manufacturers, with limited exceptions for low-end drives. I don't think OCZ was ever really "good" except for a brief window in the DDR2 days. It's more that for a long time their primary market was people who were willing to sacrifice stability to get a couple extra points in their benchmarks and their more credible competition was significantly higher priced. A janky stick of RAM that causes your computer to reboot every other day is more tolerable than an SSD that fails and takes out all of your data.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 21:36 |
|
Powerlurker posted:I don't think OCZ was ever really "good" except for a brief window in the DDR2 days. It's more that for a long time their primary market was people who were willing to sacrifice stability to get a couple extra points in their benchmarks and their more credible competition was significantly higher priced. A janky stick of RAM that causes your computer to reboot every other day is more tolerable than an SSD that fails and takes out all of your data.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 22:40 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 12:16 |
|
Powerlurker posted:I don't think OCZ was ever really "good" except for a brief window in the DDR2 days. It's more that for a long time their primary market was people who were willing to sacrifice stability to get a couple extra points in their benchmarks and their more credible competition was significantly higher priced. A janky stick of RAM that causes your computer to reboot every other day is more tolerable than an SSD that fails and takes out all of your data. OCZ was the "best" option available in the brief window from when SSD's became a thing to before Sandforce controllers hit. Unless you could afford an Intel X-25m your next best bet was an OCZ drive with an Indilinx Barefoot controller. Even then though they had at best hard drive level AFR's. I personally ran an OCZ "Solid" drive from January 2009 until the Intel X-25m G2 came out and as long as I avoided the jmicron lockup behavior its performance was great and it never failed on me.
|
# ? Jun 13, 2014 23:56 |