|
Sharing the love for the V+100 series. It's a shame they're getting phased out. If they weren't I'd have recommended them as a budget option as they were easily found for about $1.25 - $1.3 per GB. Too bad the V200 series doesn't have nearly as aggressive pricing.
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2011 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
Treytor posted:Are OCZ drives still garbage? They seem to be getting decent reviews, and I've been thinking about getting 4 of these (Raid-0) for my new build: What the reviews don't tell you is how reliable over a longer period of time, or customer service and the like. OCZ has a history of flat out lying to customers about product specs, and selling all together lovely products. On another note though, why the gently caress do you need a 480GB RAID0 setup  .
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2011 03:20
|
|
|
Gorilla Salsa posted:Would it be better to get one of these or two of these in RAID 0? There's only a ten dollar difference (as of this writing), and it's to the RAID array's favor. I am a little concerned at the lack of TRIM support in a RAID configuration, though I admittedly know very little about both RAID and TRIM. I'd also heard some stories of the 120 GB Force GTs being problematic, especially in relation to the 240 GBs. Unless you have a specific reason for it, you don't need SSD's in RAID-0, and should go for the 240GB.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2011 02:46
|
|
|
Has anyone seen a review or benchmarks for the new Kingston V200 drives? I remember they came out a while ago, but didn't see any of the major sites reviewing them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2012 06:49
|
|
|
Reith posted:Been reading this thread and doing research for a while, and I think I'm finally about ready to get a SSD. I'm about to pull the trigger on this: Given how much faster an SSD is compared to a traditional HDD, I highly doubt you'll notice any performance difference between the two. I'd go with whichever's cheaper, so the Force 3.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
Just heard that Crucial has a new firmware for the M4 that fixes the BSOD bug.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
Disgustipated posted:The Intel 320 drives aren't SATA III, you have to go to the 510 series to get SATA III. It wasn't a matter of testing SATA III drives, so much as performance when plugged into a SATA III port. It's not completely out of the question to see possible performance improvements. I mean, my USB 3.0 flash drive is noticeably faster than a USB 2.0 drive, even when plugged into the same USB 2.0 port
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
OP posted:Do not buy OCZ drives, they are not reliable. OP posted:OCZ drives are known for being defective and failing at higher-than-normal rates, with about twice the return rate of other brands for similar products. They are the worst of the major manufacturers of SSDs. For the utmost in reliability, Intel is tops. For overall value, the Corsair Force 3, or Crucial M4 are the best.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
fletcher posted:Does ANYBODY have anything good to say about OCZ? I feel with the amount of people getting burned by them a warning should be in the title of this thread. The thread title used to be gently caress OCZ 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2012 08:04
|
|
|
japtor posted:There's not much track record with Intel + SF other than the 530. In general Intel has been one of the more solid ones though, barring some bugs with early firmware updates for the G1 and G2, and that 8MB bug that still seems to be hitting some people even after the fix...but overall statistically they're still good afaik. Samsung's the only other one with a similar track record I think (other than slower performance with their old drives). In terms of reliability, remember that Intel was the first company to offer a 5 year warranty on their SSDs, with their 320s. I don't know for certain, but I don't think any other company has matched that since.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2012 06:03
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:All in favor of the thread title being renamed to "gently caress OCZ" again? Aye.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
The SSD Megathread - Motherboard chat ITT
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
DrDork posted:I would sell that bitch in an instant. You can apparently still get close to $100 for them on eBay, which is stupid, but good for you. This is assuming he doesn't have a massive grudge against his brother.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2012 07:23
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:I can get both the Mushkin Chronos 120 GB and Crucial M4 128 GB for around the same price, the Crucial M4 being about ~$10 more expensive. If I get a SSD which should I get? The OP keeps recommending the Mushkin but there's a small blurb about the Crucial being faster somewhere in there. For that small a price difference, I'd get the M4 because it's known to be a very reliable drive, and it has the extra capacity. Any speed difference is largely irrelevant because of how much faster they are compared to an HDD.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
zenintrude posted:I'm replacing my 128GB Crucial M4 with this 240GB Corsair Force Series 3 for $195... BreakAtmo posted:I really apologise if this has been discussed in the thread before - I dug through the op and the last few pages, but the thread is rather large. Can anyone here offer any experience with the Sandisk Extreme line of SSDs? I read good reviews on their performance, but haven't been able to find anything on their reliability. Since the 240GB model is available for AU$248 on MSY (the only other 240GB on there being $349), I was looking at that. I'm a bit paranoid about reliability - a tech expert friend warned me off SSDs after he had 3 different ones each die seperately in very short order (only one of them was an OCZ). This of course conflicts with what the op lays out, and I'm having trouble knowing what to think. Any help would be really appreciated. If you're particularly concerned with reliability, then I'd choose one from Intel, Samsung, or Crucial, in that order.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
The BeHardware article posted:- Intel 1.73% (as against 0.1%) That's an unfortunate for them. No doubt it's because of the price premium required for their drives. It's nice being able to quantify exactly how bad OCZ are. If you bought an OCZ drive in that time period, you were 8.5 times more likely to return it than a Crucial.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2012 01:47
|
|
|
Apparently Crucial is coming out with a new budget SSD based on a Phizon controller. I hadn't heard of them, but Anandtech says they've been in the business for quite a while. It'll have pretty poor speeds compared to todays SSDs, but the MSRP is $100 and $190 for 128GB and 256GB respectfully. Who knows how much lower those'll go though. http://www.anandtech.com/show/6125/crucial-v4-ssd
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
VextheGrey posted:So, I just installed a Crucial M4 to replace my aging Vertex2. Even if there were some PCIe card that was good, you wouldn't notice the difference. Most of the benefits from SSDs come from their random access performance, which max out at speeds below SATA2. If you are noticing poor performance, I'd attribute that to the Marvel SATA ports.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2012 16:04
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:gently caress OCZ Then there was the whole Indilinx controller confusion. They said that their Octane and Vertex 4 drives used their own Indilinx controller. It was about 5 months later, when Anand from Anandtech.com asked about it, that they admitted that they used Marvell controllers with a custom firmware. OCZ puts out terrible products, and lies through through their teeth. gently caress OCZ
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
Allstone posted:The samsung 840 appears to be pretty ridiculous. Holy crap those perform well. The thing that's interesting to me is that their power usage is so low. When I get an SSD for my laptop, I'll have to seriously consider getting one of these even if they're not priced that low.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2012 16:33
|
|
|
Goddamn Hippy posted:Hello. I have the OCZ vertex 4 128gb ssd and i'm starting to notice some irregularities. I admit i haven't read much of this thread aside from the OP and I see there is some hate for OCZ. Is there anywhere i can get more information on what makes them lovely? Not what makes them lovely, but here's a link quantifying how lovely they are.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
Anandtech just released their Samsung 840 review. It looks like it will be a really good entry drive. It doesn't do so well in some of the synthetic benchmarks, and there were some minor quirks with TRIM, but on the whole it's a good performer. The MSRP is $200 for the 250GB drive, and street prices will likely be lower than that. So long as there aren't any firmware or TLC NAND issues, it looks like it'll be a good recommendation for people.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
uhhhhahhhhohahhh posted:OCZ had the most reliable RAM at one point, too bad they suck now. It's just an anecdotal quote, but even given Anand's relationship with OCZ now, even he recognizes how lovely their memory was.Link Anand posted:When I first met Ryan around a decade ago, he wanted to know why I wouldn't allow him to advertise OCZ on AnandTech. The company at that time had an extremely bad reputation. It was among the worst I'd ever seen. It was so bad that not only would we not review their products (memory, at the time) but I wouldn't allow OCZ ads to run on the site. Although all advertising on AnandTech is handled through a third party, I still have the ultimate say on what ends up on the site. Back then, OCZ wasn't allowed.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2012 20:36
|
|
|
Plastik posted:Link to this weekend's SSD deals on Newegg. None of those are particularly compelling deals. Instead of that Intel 520, you could get this 240GB 330. It has the same performance, but is geared towards consumers as opposed to enterprise (3 vs. 5 year warranties).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2012 00:15
|
|
?
|
DrDork posted:It's one of the faster SSDs available right now (though not THE fastest), it's price has come WAY down to the point where it's price-competitive with almost any other SSD, and it is THE most reliable SSD out there. All in all, it's easily "best in class" for the moment. Intel's drives are reliable, but usually not as fast, and usually more expensive. Most SandForce based drives are as fast, and usually as cheap (or cheaper), but not as reliable. There are some new drives starting to pop up (like Samsung's own 840) which are stupid fast, but the jury is out on their reliability, and they are more expensive to boot. Given how Intel internally validated the poo poo out of the Sandforce controller, I see nothing wrong with recommending the 330. It has solid performance (not that it particularly matters), has the Intel reliability behind it, and isn't over priced. Given that there is a 240 GB 330 for $175, it is a very compelling product.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2012 08:46
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Here's the Anandtech SSD 335 review. It's equivalent to the 330, just using 20nm MLC instead of 25nm, but it seems that the base reduction in write endurance in the move to 20nm means the low-tier stuff may no longer provide adequate endurance (or at the very least, it's no longer "you can't wear it out even if you try"). I'm confused as to why they were surprised that it performed better than their 330 though. Isn't that to be expected, given that the 330 was a 180GB drive, and thus can only use 6/8 of the NAND channels?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
HorseDickSandwich posted:I've been looking pretty hard at SSD's the last few days and do believe I've narrowed down my options. I know the Samsung 830 is always a viable option, but I've got two others in mind that are a bit cheaper that I think will fit my needs just fine. e:f;b Cardboard Box A posted:Or is the 9.5mm height too much?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2012 05:20
|
|
|
Chortles posted:TigerDirect has the same drive for $130 after mail-in rebate, it's $160 before MIR; which is better?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2012 17:58
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:I cherry-picked this one but the differences weren't as big as I remembered, and in some cases the 330 was faster than the 520 in certain benchmarks.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
quote:- 40.00% for the OCZ Petrol 64 GB 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Does newegg (or a 3rd party site) have a way to sort by $/GB ? http://pcpartpicker.com/ will do that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
Gameko posted:Hi guys. Yeah, it's a good drive. Intel has a reputation of being one of, if not the best, SSD brands. If I had the money to get a new SSD, the 330 would be my first choice.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2013 07:23
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Don't you mean is a power of two? As in 120/128GB and 240/256GB but not 160GB? No. He means exactly what he says. There's nothing wrong with 120, 180, or 240 GB drives. Drives with 128 or 256 GB capacities don't have spare NAND set aside, making them less reliable. There are exceptions, but as a blanket recommendation it's sound advice, especially for an mSATA drive.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 07:45
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:How fast should .zip files decompress in Win7 64? What Crucial SSD is it specifically? If it's the V4, then you're probably just screwed, as that drive is just slow. There are times when a regular HDD is faster than it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
uhhhhahhhhohahhh posted:There is like 6000 of them, you couldn't even possibly begin to know what even 10 of them do or if they're even worth getting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
Gozinbulx posted:Ok, I'm getting too many BSOD's with my OCZ and need to pull the trigger on a SSD today. Which one is cheaper?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Gozinbulx posted:Well, I'd like the best. Its just that someone claimed that the 840 pros garbage collection was not ideal and in fact could hinder performance. Since your computer will support TRIM, that claim is garbage. Between any of the drives recommended in the OP, you aren't going to notice a difference in performance, so I'd get whichever one is cheaper.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:I'm looking to buy a SSD for my next build. The OP says that memory cells fade with time. Do the drives refresh cells that haven't been written to for ages? Say I install an application that doesn't get updated for 4 years, do I have to expect it to break because its files were never written to again? The situation the OP is referring to is for when the drive doesn't have a power source connected to it. So, just having it in a computer that's turned on will make any of these concerns moot. Really, the main lifespan "concern" has to do with the Program/Erase cycles, which aren't a realistic problem for most SSDs, just the 120GB Samsung 840 (non-pro).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
seravid posted:I'm looking to buy my first SSD. Of the recommended ~240GB drives in the OP, only the Sandisk Extreme is available in my area and within my budget (barely). I was set to buy it when I stumbled on a review of the Samsung 840 non-pro 250GB - which is significantly cheaper than the Sandisk - and now I'm not so sure. I know it's not a favorite here due to its lower endurance and performance, but 1) I'll probably replace it in three or four years and 2) its performance actually seems pretty close to the Sandisk. According to that review, they perform similarly across the board, except on the ATTO benchmark where the Sandisk admittedly smokes the Samsung. I don't know what to make of that, by the way, since in their "real world" test (which definitely sounds more relevant than a synthetic benchmark) the Samsung still outperformed the Sandisk. If the 250GB 840 is that much cheaper, then go for it. Since it's one of the bigger ones, the endurance won't be an issue.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Speed really isn't an issue anymore, durability and size will be the next frontiers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2013 20:22
|
|