|
dpbjinc posted:So, this happened. I doubt AMD got any money from the cryptocurrency craze, and OCZ new stuff doesn't seem so bad at the moment. We'll have to wait and see though. I'm just wondering why AMD didn't try a more prestigious OEM like
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
Like the comments say, you can get a SanDisk Extreme II (120GB, 240GB) for around the same price as the Arc 100, and at the 480GB+ capacities, the Samsung 840 Evo is  more. The Crucial MX100, which comes a company with a much better reputation, is dirt cheap and offers more feature rich while possessing good enough performance.Who the hell is the OCZ Arc 100 for? It doesn't deliver on performance nor does it deliver on price. Either which way you lean, there are better options. The Arc 100 isn't even meaningfully cheaper than the Vertex 460, so there isn't even a reason for an OCZ fanboy to buy this drive. I guess if $15~$20 USD means a lot for you and you're OCZ fanboy/girl this may be an acceptable drive.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
The 850 Pro uses the same controller as the 840 EVO, so it may have the same problem.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Liu posted:This EVO nonsense is holding up my start on a new PC, I can't be arsed waiting 2 months just for Samsung to say "yeah there might be a problem". Speed. The 840 EVO is faster than both the 730 and M500 in consumer workloads. You can trust Samsung, current issues notwithstanding, more than Crucial to deliver an okay, bug-free product. Even if you do trust Crucial, the M500 is a pathetic unit compared to even their newer budget MX100, and the M550 is not much better than the MX100. The Intel's 7/530 are decent units. Of course, both the 730 and MX100 come with Power-Loss protection if that is your thing. We're not waiting on Samsung. We're just waiting on a major tech site like AnandTech to cover it to see if there is a real problem with the 840 EVO. Samsung has a good track record (basically by avoiding any major firmware issues at all on their client drives). The issue seem to be able to be resolved by a quick defrag (I know, I know) or secure erasing the drive, so there's that. Also, Alereon, it appears that the non-Pro/EVO drives are also experiencing this issue, and like the Evo, it is solved by defragmenting their drives. Well, that is what people are reporting in the Linus forums and OCN (and possibly reddit). fake edit: Dick Fagballzson posted:It's a shame that Samsung seems to be going the OCZ route of releasing overhyped garbage made out of trash. I really thought they were better than that. Unfortunately it seems to be trumped up benchmark numbers and cheap prices that sell drives and not reliability and consistency. I don't think you know what're you talking about. Garbage? There is a loving bug in one or two of their SSD models. poo poo happens. How about you quit it with your confirmation bias rear end and not pretend that a bug that appeared in otherwise good products means that they're poo poo. It's dumb, and it makes you look dumb. GrizzlyCow fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Sep 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Magician still says good. I'm not sure what their threshold is, but you would think you say something by 70%. For the the TR SSD Endurance test, Samsung Magician said the 840 was good up until it died. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
People did notice the problem. That's what prompted the benchmarks. It's really noticeable, apparently, when they tried copying older files to a new drive. Especially big files. It sucks, and I'm hoping that it is fixable by firmware since so many people recommended it (even those who owned it) and so many people bought it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Considering that a TLC NAND SSD can survive over 500TB of writes, I don't suspect it would be much of problem unless they have a ~128GB drive.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Hey, guys. TechReport's SSD Endurance test continues. Here. Two Remain after 1.5PB of writes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
The original 840 suffers from the same bug ostensibly. If you're using Windows 7 or lower (or possibly Linux), make sure it isn't automatically defragging your drive. Not that it would matter too much at that storage capacity.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
redeyes posted:That may be but my 500GB non-evo HD-Tunes totally normal numbers. My 250GB EVO is a loving disaster after 6 months. That article says the 840 is affected but does not show benchmarks showing it is. No, the 840 is affected by the bug. It's just wasn't as popular as the 830 and 840 Pro when it first released, so not as many people have as, say, the 840 Evo. It most definitely suffer from the same bug. Like I said, you may have auto-defrag on your 840 if you're not seeing the issue. Or something else. fake edit: Alereon posted:So the Intel SSD 530 240GB is the obvious replacement for the Samsung 840 Evo at 250GB, but what about 500GB? It's down to the Crucial MX100 512GB and the SanDisk Ultra II 480GB. I'm inclined to recommend the SanDisk because they are a better brand than Crucial, but the 4-channel Ultra II isn't actually better than the MX100, and I don't see a single review of the 8-channel version to validate an assumption that it is. At 1TB the Ultra II is the only option, but again I'm not comfortable recommending a drive because it's PROBABLY fast. You could always recommend the SanDisk Extreme Pro at 1TB. It only has a $70 premium. As for the 500GB range, you can always fallback to the Chronos Deluxe or XLR8 Pro. Of course, the Intel 530 is nice proven drive by a reputable company, and the prices between it and the Evo isn't too huge. Though, so far, neither the MX100 nor the M550 have been horrible, so maybe we can give Crucial another chance. M4 was bad, but the M500 wasn't terrible. GrizzlyCow fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Sep 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
AnandTech and TechReport reviewed Micron's M600. It's aight.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
saucepanman posted:If there's a 30 moonbuck difference between a Samsung 850 Evo 256GB SSD and an Intel 730 256GB SSD, I should go for the Intel right? If I recall correctly, I'm pretty sure that the 240GB version of the 730 has some pretty slow write speeds, like 200MB/s less than the 480GB version by Intel's own account. It's probably still a good drive, but it isn't what the 480GB version nor is it a good value compared to anything in the same price range. The Samsung 850 EVO also consumes like half what the 730 consumes if a Watt or two is a big deal for you.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Samsung and Intel drives are basically the same price though, and more reliable. If I recall correctly, SanDisk's named SSDs are also up there in terms of reliability if not performance. Has this changed or something? Or are they not as swell I as I recall them being?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Durr...yeah. Kingston was the one doing that. Sandisk does a great job with the Extreme and Ultra SanDisk doesn't seem big in the SSD space, at least not in the consumer side as far as I can see. I'd thought their Ultra series would at least do well in the low-end segment, but I guess SanDisk doesn't offer what Crucial is offering in that area. Speaking of which, are there any reviews for their unnamed drives? The best I got was a NewEgg review that compared it poorly to a Corsair LS drive.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Xenomorph posted:The same 840 EVO that was a top-selling drive and heavily recommended in this thread? Samsung had some firmware issues with their TLC drives that destroyed their performance. Apparently TLC is trickier to get right, but I don't think SanDisk has the same issues so it may be just a Samsung issue. Also, please don't reply to redeyes, he's absolutely obnoxious with his hate of TLC drives. I will say that TLC SSDs will be marginalized by MLC drives as the latter becomes cheaper and cheaper. Crucial's BX100 and MX200 looks mighty fine for their price, and they're both MLC. As a matter of fact, there is no decent drive meaningfully cheaper than the Crucial BX100 in the American market at the moment. Unless Micron is eating up some loss with each sale, I think Samsung should go that route since their two previous attempts with TLC has gone a little poo poo (from a consumer point of view). Actually, has anyone with a SSD from SanDisk's Ultra series experienced any of those slowdown?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Welmu posted:Intel's SSD Revolution countdown (http://www.intelgamingpromo.com/intel15b/ssd/notice) hit zero. You weren't looking in the right places, my friend.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
I don't know. Crucial seem to have been on the ball with their last couple years worth of SSDs. Did any of their SSDs after the m4 have any major issues? People are treating them like they're OCZ bad, but they seem to have gotten their poo poo together awhile ago.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Crucial if you care more about price and capacity than performance. The BX100 drives are their current budget option, but the MX200 is bit better for a bit more. Intel drives are pretty good and reliable. If you can find a 530 for around the same price as your old 850, that'd be ideal. SanDisk also makes some good drives. Their Ultra II is their latest budget drive, and the Extreme Pro is their current best consumer drive. The Samsung 850 Evo is probably the best drive at its price range, but it is natural to be skeptical if one failed on you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Don't let them disrespect you like that! Kill 'em. But no seriously, that sucks.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
The 840 series, excluding the 840 Pro, has a bug that can lead to crippling performance degradation. From my understanding, neither of Samsung's fix isn't too hot either. I would recommend a modern Crucial/Micron drive before the 840 EVO at this point. However, the Samsung 850 EVO should be cheaper than the 840 EVO, and you get a much better drive for the money.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
The Intel 730 was Intel's previous EXTREME drive. If I recall correctly, it was outdone by SanDisk Extreme II and Samsung 850 Pro in most workloads. It was also power hungry as far as SSDs goes. If your Samsung 830 works, then you should be fine with that.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Good news: you can! Actually, SSDs seem to deal poorly with heat.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
TomWaitsForNoMan posted:So is Samsung now not recommended or is it just a Linux problem? Are there any brands that are (as far as is possible) considered safe to buy? Samsung is still safe for Windows and OSX. Intel and SanDisk are pretty safe bets off the top of my head if you'd rather not deal with Samsung. I'd argue Crucial is alright too, but they've been having the same issues as Samsung.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Furism posted:Not to mention it's no longer supported AFAIK so Microsoft won't fix security vulnerabilities any more, making the company prime for a targeted attack/hack. My condolences. Being stuck on XP is one thing, but being forced to use IE6 is whole another deal.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
I didn't notice this before, but Crucial has released their new BX200. The BX200 is worse than BX100, MX100, MX200, and any other value drive.  Why would you waste money on this? Just spend more on an okay drive.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
This is glorious. Tom's Hardware apparently tested it against the RealSSD C300, and the C300 outperformed it. This is such an odd maneuver by Micron. They've been doing decent since the M500, but they must be trying to undo any good will now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Binary Badger posted:What do people think of Silicon Image SSD controllers? I believe they're on some of the newer Crucial SSDs and a new one from OWC..
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
AnandTech's Crucial BX200 review has the Arc, Trion, and Ultra II as part of the comparison, and the Ultra II review has the Ultra Plus in it. There's no direct comparison from any of my usual haunts. edit: There's also Hardware.fr's return data.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
Can modern RAID controllers handle TRIM now?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
AnandTech did a thing about this. Cooling had a massive impact on any sustained workload, especially sequential workloads. edit: It's still mostly a non-issue unless you 100% need that kind of performance.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 18:15
|
|