Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Is there some detailed database of SSDs that lists specs? I'm mainly looking for an easy way to determine if a given SSD has DRAM or not, and I usually have to search for that info on a drive-by-drive basis. Often reviews and product listings don't mention DRAM status or list the controller, even if it's a drive that does have DRAM; a good example is the HP S700 Pro which does have DRAM (as opposed to the non-Pro version) but as you can see HP's listing is lacking in details. I'm not looking for SSD recommendations, I'm just trying to find an easy way to determine DRAM status in particular when deals on cheap SSDs show up.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Bob Morales posted:

What controller? Is it DRAM-less?

It would work for a kids laptop or something even if it's not that great of a drive.

That's why I was asking about a spec database, for exactly this type of question. Those Inland SSDs are Microcenter's house brand, and they've come up on sale recently for pretty great prices ($26/120 GB, $46/240 GB.) They're manufactured by someone reputable (Micron perhaps, I forget what I had originally found out) and use the Phison S11 controller, which can have DRAM or run DRAMless, so that doesn't help us answer the question although those low prices probably indicate the absence of DRAM. They use MLC though (except for the 480 GB) and at those prices they're still a pretty drat good deal.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Lockback posted:

2TB micron SSD for under $250 from rakuten. Just going to share the Slickdeals link.

https://slickdeals.net/share/android_app/fp/395847

This seems like a really good deal for a gaming machine. Anything I'm missing?

IIRC this was technically as low as ~$230 last week on eBay with that 20% off (max $100) discount although I used mine on a laptop for a friend.

Also IIRC, the Micron 1100 is the OEM drive that is sold directly to manufacturers, and is branded for consumer sale as the Crucial MX300. This should be the drive we're looking at here. This line is 3D TLC and does have DRAM, I believe at a 1000:1 NAND:DRAM ratio (i.e. 1 TB SSD with a 1 GB DRAM cache.)

Aside from my thought at the bottom of this post, the only real concern with this SSD is as Lockback mentioned, the warranty status, since as I said this isn't intended to be sold directly to consumers:

Lockback posted:

It's Rakuten so I am pretty sure the answer is no, though your credit card should give you 30 days to protect against DOA

For what it's worth (which isn't much) the seller (Platinum Micro, which I've seen around so they're not exactly fly-by-night) posted this at the beginning of the item description:

quote:

3 Year Manufacturer Micron Warranty (US & Canada only)
Contact +1(800)-336-8896

So, YMMV. Definitely buy this with a good CC, Paypal protection, etc. I'd find a purchase like this easier to rationalize at a lower cost, e.g. $120-150 for 1 TB, $75-100 for 500 GB, etc.

Bob Morales posted:

Either way, that's a ton of SSD storage for $250

Indeed, although I'm having trouble rationalizing a huge, expensive SSD over an HDD of the same capacity at a much lower cost. I can understand if you need to have a rugged, vibration-insensitive system, or if you only have physical space for a single drive and need a high-capacity system drive, but if I was building a new system I'd go with a faster (maybe NVMe or just a plain faster/better drive like a Samsung) but less capacious SSD for the OS and then a larger HDD for bulk storage. If you just need 2 TB of storage for games/media then why not go with a same-capacity HDD for 1/3 the cost? Or if you're adding storage to a desktop then you have far better price/capacity options in 3.5" drives.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Klyith posted:

Video games are pretty much the perfect use for something like this. They're enormous these days. (I have a 500 gb SSD these days and have to pick and choose a lot about what games go on it.) And games generally see a benefit* moving from HD to SSD, but no real difference between a mediocre TLC SATA drive and a top-spec NVMe drive.

*in loading times

I just recently read an article comparing game loading times, and I wish I'd saved it. The gist of it was that most games didn't show a huge difference in load times between the SSDs and HDDs, save for one RPG or something that has very frequent level loads. In general though, I still wouldn't say games are necessary to dedicate to SSD space, both due to the expense of the latter and the potentially massive space requirements of the former. The main game I play (World of Tanks) is another example of one that does benefit from an SSD as assets load mid-match and cause micro-stuttering from an HDD, but the majority of games are probably just fine on a cheap HDD. Also note that the games most likely to benefit from being on an SSD are those with many small files due to random access being much better on the former, but otherwise modern HDDs are quite respectable in terms of sustained transfer rates (especially 7200+ RPM drives, and especially for the price!)

Also, keep in mind that because games can be so huge (50 GB or more nowadays) that if you have a decent-sized collection (such as my Steam library) then even a 2 TB SSD can be insufficient (I've got around 4 TB of Steam, VR, and other games installed on this PC alone, and that's after paring down some of the installed content to initially keep them within a 3 TB drive, with far more games not currently installed that could be if space were not a factor,) so you're still potentially going to have to stick some games on an alternate medium, as you're currently experiencing with that 500 GB drive (which is probably faster than the 2 TB one.) There's definitely a use for huge, cheap HDDs for game and media storage.

Then, note that the 2 TB MX300/Micron 1100 is actually a bit slower than you'd expect from a larger SSD, meaning you're ceding some of that performance advantage over an HDD for the sake of more SS storage, further clouding the rationale for putting games on such a device as opposed to a much cheaper HDD. I'm sure there's an ideal use-case for a large, modestly fast SATA SSD over an inexpensive (and potentially much more capacious) HDD, but most games don't need to be on the former. I'll reiterate that the best use-case is probably in a mobile device with physical space for only a single 2.5" drive, where it's far easier to justify an expensive SSD that has to hold the OS, games, and media.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


The "never plan on buying a game again" part is nonsensical, because if you have both SSDs and HDDs then moving games between them is trivial, even for as-yet-nonexistent ~future~ games. Transferring games between drives is supported directly within Steam at this point, and I can't think of any other games that have weird registry issues when moving between drives (seriously, we're not using Windows 98 anymore dude.) As previously mentioned, random reads are of course better on SSDs but that's not necessarily of benefit to any given game; it all depends on whether or not the game relies on a ton of tiny files or huge map/texture/whatever files (in which case an HDD would suffice.) It's as simple as installing a game on your HDD, seeing if it causes micro-stuttering (which would indicate random access latency) and then moving it over to the SSD if that's the case.

I hate to beat a dead horse here, but it's not like there's much else being discussed in this thread.

3peat posted:

Unless I'm playing a game and the fans spin up, my HDD is the noisiest component in my system. Plus I have gigabit internet and torrenting something chockes the hard drive, so I had to set up the unfinished folder on one of my ssds so that it downloads there first and then transfers the file automatically to the HDD. That drive also chockes when downloading from steam or origin, but it only limits the download speed to 40-50 MB/s, while with torrents sometimes it starts making weird noises and grinds to a halt, then picks up again, then it stops again, and so on
Anyway, for those reasons I'm looking to ditch my last remaining HDD and go SSD only

Aside from the "noisy HDD" complaint (try headphones! ) this is a good application of SS storage over a spinning HDD. That doesn't obviate the latter for capacious, cheap storage, but for dealing with heavily fragmented files by all means go SS.

Atomizer fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Jun 12, 2018

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Klyith posted:

This was either talking about consoles, or intensely wrong. The difference on an up to date PC is not trivial.

The part where you could argue that a HD is still fine for games is that, for most titles, the most dramatic difference is during dedicated loads. (IE level load, or loading a save, times when the game is re-initializing lots of its memory.) When it's a non-interactive black screen with a loading bar, does it really make that much difference if you're waiting 10 seconds or 15? Some multiplayer games have a competitive advantage from loading in faster, but presumably if someone is going esports enough to care they can put that one game one their ssd.

Eh, ultimately this is a still a no right answer thing. The difference isn't so dramatic, and SSDs are not yet so cheap, to be a slam dunk for everyone. I didn't buy that Micron drive because I'm a cheap bastard and I don't need to spend $250 just for some marginal game performance.

I saw that first article. Two things to note: only a single game was benchmarked, and look at the performance differences versus the prices of those media. I mean it doesn't surprise me that the Optane is the fastest, but it'd better be for $600! And the 960 Pro is $1200.... You certainly don't have to compare them to the 10 TB HDD (since none of the SSDs have anywhere near that capacity) so you could probably get the same level of performance from a $100 2 TB HDD. So then you end up with a several-second difference between the HDD and the nearest SSD; several second is bearable for a several-hundred-dollar price differential.

That techreport article yields similar results. Sure, if you want to load Duke Nukem Forever (lol) levels twice as fast as an HDD, by all means put it on an SSD!

In the end, your last statement is what I've been trying to argue here: SSDs aren't inexpensive enough for everyone to just use them in place of all HDDs, especially when in the case of the 2 TB 2.5" HDD vs SSD the difference is triple the cost (or even quadruple if you consider that that HDD touches as low as $70 and the SSD normally goes for closer to $300.) You don't necessarily get triple/quadruple the value of going all-SS, but some people won't care about the cost and there are of course applications where it's worth it.

Regarding the game loading times: I can totally understand if you want to cut down on game-stopping, loading-bar full level loads, but I was arguing that the biggest performance advantage of SSD gaming is when the game in question streams assets during gameplay, such as in competitive shooters that wait until the enemy pops up around a corner to load the models/textures (and an HDD becomes a liability.)

necrobobsledder posted:

I bought the 2 TB SSD for my home storage and media application server that is running a number of VMs, containers, and decompressing and downloading files at about 30%+ duty cycle. On the 7200 RPM WD Black disk I use, it takes three times as long and with a rash of recent hard drive failures for myself I’d rather stick with SSDs even for lighter usage. This tends to also matter more with a higher bandwidth connection than if I was on some 10 Mbps download link.

I only have two real uses for magnetic storage anymore - lowest cost bulk storage primarily for archival uses or for a Kafka broker that is specifically written to perform sequential read and write patterns matching rotational media. Life is too short to bother with slow computers unless cost is a big deal like when money is tight or you’re working at huge scale where compute resources are actually more expensive than people’s time arguing about the resource efficiency.

HDDs are indeed good for archival purposes, but also, in one of my use cases, for storing multimedia for a Plex server. Outside of a many-client scenario (which doesn't even apply here due to limited upstream bandwidth,) HDDs are perfectly sufficient in terms of performance but also cost-effective given the vast storage requirements of serving HD video.

LRADIKAL posted:

Just caught an article on these cheap, extra small nvme drives. Is there any notable hardware that only have the short form m.2 slots?

https://amp.tomshardware.com/news/t...-ssd,37284.html

Toshiba RC100 M.2 2242 480GB NVMe PCIe 3.0 x2 64-layer 3D BiCS TLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) THN-RC10Z4800G8 , https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...Item=20-168-037

Some ultrabooks/ultraportables, I'm sure, have 2242 slots. I know some Chromebooks do (e.g. the Dell 13 (2015)) (albeit SATA only.) One upcoming device is the GPD Win 2, however again it appears to be SATA only and not NVMe. That's especially a shame considering there's a very limited selection of 2242 m.2 SSDs in the first place, particularly inexpensive ones >256 GB. I'm intending on settling for this one for ~$90, but I'd totally have been willing to go with that Toshiba for $155 (if it was SATA!)

The main disadvantage of the RC100 appears to be that it's DRAMless, which reduces performance and lifespan, although the HMB feature should mitigate that somewhat. Also, the small 2242 size is enabled by the single-chip design, which is still an advantage even if there are few devices that require the shortest m.2 modules because anything that can fit a larger module almost always has the posts to fit shorter ones.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


franchise1 posted:

It's half the price, and the people that I'm doing it for are very tight. I suspect they are going to stick with the existing drives but thought I could sell a £25 SSD to them.

Just do it then. Any SSD will be better than an HDD boot drive. Don't even give them the option, say the "hard drive crashed" and they need to upgrade to SSDs.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Streak posted:

I'm building a PC and the SSD is the absolute last piece of gear I need to throw this all together. I intend to use this PC for gaming, some streaming and video editing.

The 960 evo is in stock locally, but not the 970 evo.

Looking at the 500GB models.

I see the 970 is slightly faster but is the extra cost and wait time really justified by this? I'm googling a lot and everyone seems to have conflicting answers from "you won't really notice the speed difference" to "the 960 is going to break down within 6 months of you buying it and you'll be sorry you didn't just take the hit".

Some insights would be much appreciated.

Unless you were to go with the cheapest, crappiest Chinese SSD over literally any other decent one, you're not going to notice the difference. Once you put the SSD in your system and close it up you'll forget about it. Just go with the best deal on a decent drive and be done with it. Hell, Microcenter's 480 GB TLC (which does have DRAM!) is $75 at the moment, an all-time low.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Streak posted:

I forgot to mention I'm in Canada, so while I really appreciate you going out of your way to find me that sweet deal unfortunately I won't be able to take advantage of it.

Are there any brands/models that are to be avoided? I do have concerns about drive failures and longevity down the road. I had one SSD die on me a few years back and it sucked.

Ah, drat.

Anyways, for your main SSD, you'd generally want to get a better drive than you'd have as a secondary, i.e., get one with DRAM (generally if you do a little research and can't find whether or not a model has DRAM, that means it probably doesn't, but typically all the popular models you've heard of do have it, like the Samsungs,) MLC and/or 3D NAND, etc. Klyith's recommendations are spot on, but avoid the very low end especially the WD Greens.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Klyith posted:

Also, I just thought of this: 256GB is IMO the wrong size for the PC enthusiast.

I first got an SSD in like 2011, a 90GB drive when they were just getting down towards the $1/GB mark. Used that for more than 5 years continuously* and was very happy with it. Thing had just enough room for OS, applications, page file, etc. The basics. Everything else stayed on HDDs and it was all just peachy.

Then I bought a 256GB drive, and it lasted less than a year before I moved up a 500GB one. The 256 was big enough to put stuff on, and that paradoxically made it feel smaller than the 90. It wasn't enough space to not need to care about space if you get what I mean. 500 isn't so huge that I'll never delete anything again, but it'll be a clean-up once or twice a year.


*which is surprising since it was an OCZ. still works in fact, I have it in a usb3 caddy for ultra-fast sneakernet

It's pretty much, "get as large an SSD as you can," for all of the reasons: usable capacity, speed, future proofing, etc. But if you have a budget, I recommend no less than 128 GB for just the OS and maybe Chrome. Go up to 256 GB and then you have room for a couple games, and so on. If you have space for multiple drives then your OS one doesn't have to be arbitrarily large, however; if anything I'd be happy with a smaller NVMe drive and then programs can go on whatever other drives in the system.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


My old gaming desktop still has a 240 GB Intel 330, which is running fine and I just realized it's DRAMless (and it still shows 100% NAND flash health after a couple dozen TB of writes and 5+ years of use.) I keep WoT on the SSD along with the OS and haven't seen a reason to swap it out with anything else. (Other games are on HDDs.)

Geemer posted:

I'm on 256 GB for roughly 4-5 years and it is fine if you don't want to install more than a small handful of Steam games at a time. But to be honest, I really loving hate that I have to uninstall games the moment I wanna try a different one I just bought in the sale.

I've been seriously thinking of just getting a bigger one because 256 is too small. Especially with SSD prices being much lower nowadays.

If you are hurting for storage, you can pretty economically get the Inland 480 GB on Amazon for $75 right now, (it's a Centon C380, and has DRAM.) There was even a lightning deal on an Adata SU655 (DRAMless) 480 GB for ~$68 earlier in the morning.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Palladium posted:

Some NAND fab is just going to have a convenient disaster soon isn't it.

Didn't SSD prices finally start to drop after the Chinese government went after the manufacturers for price fixing a few months ago? That, and it wouldn't surprise me if plummeting prices have plenty to do with manufacturers trying to clear out their previous-gen flash, planar stuff or for example Micron and those cheap 2 TB drives (with their older 32-layer TLC.)

Rexxed posted:

You can use steammover or maybe the steam client (I haven't tried it myself but people say it's easy) to just move the game to your HD when you're taking a break. I agree that 500GB provides a good bit more breathing room, I'm at 320GB used without being very careful about disk usage. I didn't even realize XCOM2 was still on my SSD until I just looked because I haven't been too careful about space management in the last 3 years or so since I got it.

Steam Mover is pretty much obsolete now; you can easily move games within Steam itself like you said, you have the option within the properties page for any given game. Just create a new library on another medium first and then you'll be able to move content to it.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Klyith posted:

that was specifically dram memory, not flash

But DRAM prices are still ridiculously high, while NAND flash mercifully plummeted! I got 32 GB of DDR4 SO-DIMMs a couple of years ago for about half of what they're going for right now! Gah!!!

Damnit China, why can't you do anything right!

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


You can do the same with USB adapters for mSATA drives; that's a handy way to re-purpose the less-capacious SSDs that were shipped in older laptops as cache for a main HDD. Although, I recently realized that putting them in 2.5" enclosures/adapters instead makes for an easy way to get a decent boot drive for a CloudReady installation or whatever lightweight Linux distro you'd prefer for a secondary/guest/whatever PC.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


The Iron Rose posted:

This might be the dumbest take

Yeah, I mean, I have a laptop that has 2x m.2 slots - and that's it, no 2.5" bays even! If m.2 drives are "a trap" (whatever that's supposed to mean) then what kind of internal storage am I supposed to use?!? To clarify, one slot is SATA/NVMe and one is SATA only; the former came pre-populated with an NVMe drive and then I added an SATA one in the 2nd slot for more storage as that was my only "option" (i.e. there weren't any options.) If the m.2 SATA part is the problem, well realistically it's non-negotiable for a lot of [older] systems; they can't really be a "trap" if there's no other choice.

Other than that I agree that SATA is a bottleneck for SSD performance if that's what he was getting at, but it's not really an issue for most users since any SSD will be an upgrade over an HDD boot drive, most users won't notice the difference with an NVMe drive, and we're currently dealing with manufacturers who still sell complete systems without SSDs, so we're not even over that hump yet!

GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:

They need to standardize an area of motherboards where nvme drives are fitted on the underside, so that motherboard trays can include a cutout.

Taking the board out of my old itx system to fit nvme was a pain in the rear end.

I haven't build a desktop in so long that I was actually surprised to see that mobo linked a few posts ago; it's the first time I'd seen the m.2 slots scattered around a board, and it really seems like they crammed them in wherever there was space. With dual-slot PCIe cards installed I'd imagine it's a pain in the rear end to access the m.2 slots underneath. Anyways, my gaming desktop is several years old at this point, but it has an mSATA slot on the back side that I can't reach without disassembling the whole thing, and it's a custom SFF system so it's more of a hassle than it's worth at this point, and I totally agree that having standardized access through the chassis is a great idea.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


I recently booted up an old HP Envy laptop, with an AMD A10-4600m, nothing special, particularly nowadays, but it's got enough graphical power in that APU that it can play some older games that don't make sense to have to run on my far more powerful gaming desktop. The problem was that the laptop had a HDD in its single 2.5" bay, which was exactly as loving slow as you'd expect, especially coming from any system with an SSD, and even with a flash drive for ReadyBoost to cache for the HDD (perhaps a very fast flash drive would've made a bigger difference.) The laptop has no other ports, mSATA, etc., so it can only have a single drive installed.

I was determined to upgrade the system to make it more bearable, and my options were:
- SSHD (1 TB, ~$60)
- large SSD (~ 500 GB, $75-100)
- small SSD (~128 GB, $25-40) with the 750 GB HDD in an external USB enclosure (~$10) for game storage

I turned down the SSHD because I was so turned off by the HDD experience that I didn't want one anywhere near the system's boot drive, even though it'd probably be fine once the drive cached the important OS files. Also this would've obviated the need to use the original drive externally for game storage, even though it'd be an option for choices 1 & 2 above; the 750 GB HDD had <400 GB used even with games installed, so it'd be unnecessary.

I didn't feel putting a decently-sized SSD in such an old laptop was worth it, given that it only needs the OS on it and not any games, even though they'd fit. I ended up putting in a 128 GB PNY CS1311 that I already had, which is a decent TLC SSD with DRAM from a couple years ago, but in the absence of that I'd have gone with the $25 Inland drive which would be perfect for such a 5-6-year-old laptop. The original HDD holds just the games now and it's overall a far, far better experience.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Klyith posted:

another good reason is that afaik those are all seagates and seagate has not been having a great time recently with reliability. (though that's with desktop drives, their laptop drives could be totally different)

WD makes/made them too, and I'm sure somebody else has at some point. The one notable thing about the Seagates is that the 2.5" FireCuda has a 2 TB version that, unlike the lower capacities or earlier versions (e.g. the Momentus XT line,) uses SMR, which would be fine for long-term and/or bulk media storage but not great for an actively-used, randomly-accessed application as in an OS or even a gaming drive (even though the FireCuda is specifically marketed towards the latter application.) In essence it seems like the 8 GB SS cache on that drive is used to make up for the performance deficit of SMR rather than to simply boost the performance of an HDD as in the other SSHD options.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


redeyes posted:

Ive tried the WD, Seagate and Toshiba SSHDs and the Toshibas destroy the others in terms of noticeable speed. After a boot or 2 you get nearly SSD speeds. Very nice.

I wasn't aware Toshiba had made SSHDs (and wouldn't be surprised if they were re-brands of someone else's drives) but from the looks of things they no longer make them because they're hard to find and anything left on the market seems overpriced. They don't look like anything special, though; 5400 RPM and 8 GB NAND.

At least Seagate had gotten creative with their [previous] SSHDs: you could get a Momentus XT with a 7200 RPM drive and a separate model with 32 GB of NAND.

As if 32 GB of, say, MLC NAND was expensive nowadays...Seagate (or anyone else) could make an actually desirable SSHD by including that amount of NAND with a decent-capacity (1-2 TB at 9.5 mm height) 7200 RPM PMR drive....

At this point, though, SSDs are approaching cheap enough to justify in place of HDDs; here's a 1 TB ADATA for $136 after coupon. The SU650 is the DRAMless version, though (so, perfect for bulk storage;) the SU800 has DRAM and is also frequently on sale for $~150, and that'd be more appropriate as a boot drive.

Edit: Compared to that ADATA, this PNY CS900 is basically the same drive, a DRAMless 1 TB, but is a worse deal at $180 after code. This Mushkin, by contrast, is also $180 but is a better deal with MLC and DRAM despite being a few years old.

Atomizer fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Jul 7, 2018

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Paul MaudDib posted:

What effect will only having x2 lanes for a NVMe SSD have? Obviously it'll lower throughput by at least some extent, but does it also affect IOPS?

Well IOPS is a measure of drive performance, and certainly if throughput is decreased then IOPS is too by definition. However, the real question is, "is a given drive bottlenecked by only 2 lanes?" which is potentially going to be "no" for some of the slower drives. The only important question, however, is, "will you notice the difference [between an NVMe drive on 2 vs 4 lanes]?" and the answer is most likely "no."

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


For Prime Day the MX500 1 TB is down to $185 - $45 in checkout + tax.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Aight, that same MX500 1 TB 2.5" is ~$165, the m.2 version is the same price, and the SanDisk Plus 1 TB 2.5" is $150 for those who missed out on the cheaper MX500 the first time around. That SanDisk has DRAM from what I understand (the 512 GB and greater drives have DRAM in that line) and is a decent 2nd or 3rd choice if the prime Samsung or Crucial drives are too expensive.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Gigabyte 512 GB SSD for $95. Toshiba TLC 64-layer 3D NAND, 512 MB DRAM cache, 200 TBW. Same price as the SanDisk SSD Plus 480 GB on Amazon right now, $5 less than the WD Blue, but otherwise $15-20 less than an MX500 or 860 Evo seem to be. Probably worth a shot.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


I wasn't trying to start an argument, just sharing what could be a reasonable deal to some people. $20 isn't a huge difference between a lot of computer parts, but when we're talking about ~500 GB-class SSDs that normally run around $100 ($75-125 depending on model and quality) $20 is around 20%, which isn't a bad discount.

There's a pair of Adata 1 TB SSDs that often go on sale on Rakuten about once a month, and while I know they're considered lower-tier they're still some of the best deals for bulk solid-state storage (media, games, etc.) outside of the Micron 1100 2 TB when it goes on sale for ~$250. I'll link those here the next time they show up.*

Edit: Actually on Rakuten right now the coupon code "SAVE15" is active. You can get the aforementioned Micron 2 TB for $250 or an MX500 1 TB for $153 [this sold out while I was typing] which is around where it was on Prime Day (the price changed a few times.)

*You can also get the aforementioned Adata SU650 960 GB for $136 or the SU800 1 TB for $150. I think they have different controllers but the latter has DRAM, the former is DRAMless. As long as that MX500 is available for basically the same price you'd definitely go with that over the SU800 [see above], but otherwise you'd still be saving a substantial amount ($50+) over the former or say the 860 Evo at normal prices of $200 or above.

The SU650 isn't something I'd use for a boot drive, being DRAMless (although as I've mentioned my gaming desktop has a DRAMless MLC Intel 330 that's been running strong all along) but it's perfect if you're trying to get rid of HDDs and go totally solid-state and you want the most economical drive for your game storage or whatever. The $14 difference between the two Adata's is a little more difficult to justify given that the SU800 is clearly better, but it's still a 10% difference, and if you're looking for the best deal other than that Micron then give it a shot.

Atomizer fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Jul 31, 2018

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Grog posted:

Hm. Too bad those Rakuten deals are only for the US.

I got my 1 TB MX500 in the mail today and am currently running a 512 GB 840 Pro as my system drive. Would it make more sense to replace the 840 Pro with the MX500 as the OS drive, or just add the MX500 as a secondary drive? I don't think I've tried cloning drives before so I don't know how much of a hassle it is or if that messes with Windows 10's activation or anything.

Echoing the sentiments above. Just keep the Samsung as your boot drive for now, you're not going to notice a difference in performance, Macrium Reflect Free works great, and also, in the future when you want to do a fresh install of Windows you can do it to the newest drive then. Windows 10 activation isn't going to be an issue; if it's an OEM copy of the OS then it is linked to the motherboard, and you can change the rest of the hardware (including drives) with no issue.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Adata SU650 960 GB 2.5" for $128 with code AD22. DRAMless and TLC, but fine for those of you insistent on getting all your games & media off HDDs.

Also, if you need an m.2 SATA drive, the WD Blue 500 GB is $84 after code EMCPXPT28 (probably must be signed up for their newsletter with your e-mail address though.) The code is good for $5 off, and the same drive is actually the same regular price (so just $5 more) on Amazon; the price has been on a pretty steady decline for the past several months: https://camelcamelcamel.com/Blue-NA...duct/B073SBX6TY

Finally, the Microcenter Inland 240 GB is $43, up from an all-time low of $40 a few days ago, and the 480 GB version is still $73 (up from $70 a few weeks ago.) The line seems to have been standardized to TLC/DRAMless as of the last teardowns I saw. At those prices the 240 GB is pretty much a given for a "cheap SSD upgrade to the HDD in Mom's laptop" (or whatever) as opposed to the $25-30 120 GB alternatives, and the 480 is a solid, modest game drive if you don't want to splurge on the Adata above (my brother got that SSD for the specific purpose of moving some games off a slow HDD and he's been very happy with it.)

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Crucial MX300 525 GB 2.5" for $80. Despite being a previous-gen model it's a better drive than the low-end DRAMless stuff around the same price. Also this is the product line to which the OEM Micron 1100 (notably the cheap 2 TB version) belongs.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


BIG HEADLINE posted:

I'd still contend the 500GB MX500 is a better buy at $100 - for a primary drive. This would be fine for a Steam/secondary drive.

The MX500 is indeed $90 right now on Amazon, and was available more cheaply with the SAVE15 coupon on Rakuten recently. At $100 though it's still a 25% increase in price for comparable drives, and you're underestimating the MX300's performance (as a mainstream drive with DRAM, albeit a little older,) plus there are far better candidates for secondary (bulk storage) SSDs in even cheaper, DRAMless options like the Inland for as low as $70/500 GB or the SU650/1 TB for $128 (available NOW on Rakuten, code AD22.)

Paul MaudDib posted:

From what I remember reading in reviews, it's not that it has a 140 GB SLC cache, it's that it can either write the cells in SLC mode or QLC mode - the former is faster, the latter has higher capacity. So to start, the drive will run entirely in SLC mode, and then as it fills up it starts switching more and more over to QLC mode, degrading performance as the drive gets more and more full.

128 GB of real SLC would be a lot, like easily $1000+ even at current market prices.

It has some permanent SLC cache (6-24 GB depending on capacity) and then the rest of the QLC operates in SLC mode but then is "folded" back into QLC as it's filled.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Micron 1100 2 TB 2.5" for $245 after code PLM50 through the 15th.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


I took a chance and used the 15% off everything eBay coupon to grab one of those Inland 480 GB SSDs, and I lucked out in getting the older, Centon-based (with DRAM) version for under $70, so that's pretty great!

havenwaters posted:

Seems to throttle down to like 250-300 MB/s after writing data to it for a little while (16+ gigs/when it hits 60 celsius?). That loving price though.

Mini Review on the Micron 1100 SSD Just someone copying a lot of data between their two SSDs back and forth to test sustained throughput.

Yeah, it's all about the price though. The Micron 1100, btw, is the OEM version of the MX300, so search for the latter if you want to be able to find more information in reviews.

Edit: Through the 14th, Rakuten has a 15% off code of BTS15 which can be used on other SSDs if the 2 TB Micron is too much.

Atomizer fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Aug 12, 2018

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Yeesh, and I was happy about the prices of SSDs like this:

Microcenter has an Inland 512 GB NVMe (2 lane) for $110. The similar SX6000 apparently gets excessively hot so for around the same price this could be an alternative worth trying, at least until the SX8200 (4 lane) goes on sale again.

They also came out with a 1 TB Inland 2.5" drive for $155. Nobody's opened it up so we don't know who makes it, but the absence of heavy overprovisioning (i.e. not 960 GB) and a 660 TBW for 3D TLC suggest it has DRAM. Around $150 for a 1 TB drive with DRAM is a good price [currently].

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


SU800 1 TB for $139 after code AD23. This is the better of the two commonly sold Adata drives, the SU650 being DRAMless.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


The Adata XPG SX8200 480 GB 4-lane NVMe is back on sale for $100 after coupon code AD17.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Mushkin Triactor 500 GB for $80 through the end of today. Decent 3D TLC 2.5" with DRAM.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


I've had excellent experiences with Warehouse Deals, and items are usually in better shape than described, and I wouldn't be averse to trying an SSD from there if the price was right, however there are so many deals on new SSDs that it'd have to be a hell of a discount to bother. Samsung SSDs are good, just not mandatory, and there are plenty of other good options. The Mushkin I posted is suspected to have the same hardware (controller and NAND) of the MX500, which is considered to be right up there in quality and desirability with a Samsung Evo, for example. Since you're apparently looking for an NVMe drive, presumably you've seen the 960 Pro which has a 512 GB version as a Warehouse Deal for $185; I also recently posted an Adata 480 GB NVMe for $100, and there's no way in hell a used 960 Pro is worth almost double what that new SX8200 is going for (on sale.)

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Harik posted:

I burned out an EVO doing caching on a 12TB array, yes. I could just keep feeding it lower endurance drives but I think the pro will be more cost-effective in the end. Could be wrong!

If there's a cheaper high-endurance option I'm all for that too.

If a 1 TB mushkin would take more writes than a 500gb pro that'd be an overall better option. This will be drive #3 I've fed to it so I'd prefer it to last. At least I'm getting #2 out before it's completely burnt out, I can put it in something lighter duty.

Hmm, it sounds like you have a very specific use-case; without revealing this beforehand you're going to get recommendations assuming you're just looking for a normal consumer drive. You'll definitely want an MLC drive (I don't think they make new SLC ones anymore) and likely an enterprise-grade one designed for durability rather than some consumer drive that's primarily designed to be cheap. You want cheap though which isn't compatible with your rather brutal use-case; most people will not burn out their SSDs before they replace the whole system.

SlayVus' Optane recommendation is probably ideal for your situation.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Sprite141 posted:

I'm still using a sony 840 evo after about 5 years or so now. It's been my OS and main program drive about 90% full at all times for years. But recently I've been running into some issues that aren't the ssd's fault, but I'll need to reinstall windows fresh and clean. I had an intel management program decide my os drive and storage drive needed to be in a raid setup for about 4 months, amongst other things.

If I remember correctly, the 840's were out when ssd's were getting stable enough that read/write issues for general users wasn't an issue. But after 5 years of constant use I don't know if I can consider reusing the drive as my main install, or just writing it off and using it as a cache drive. Does anyone here have more experience on doing a clean installs on an ssd?

You mean Samsung; Sony wishes it owned Samsung's SSD line!

You're right, the 840 Evo was right around the time that Samsung was starting to dominate SSD recommendations, and when TLC was becoming acceptable, although this was still 2D NAND. This particular SSD (specifically, the NAND used,) however was vulnerable to performance degradation over time (i.e. notably prominent cell charge decay requiring data re-reads and thus low read performance) and had at least two firmware updates to address the issue (which largely resolve it at the cost of re-writing data periodically, which of course decreases drive lifespan.) If you installed Magician and updated the firmware (which was last updated over 3 years ago unless I'm mistaken) you'll have the best performance possible out of that drive, and I still think it's worth using. Note that SSDs should NOT be filled up for performance and endurance reasons, so if yours has been at 90% capacity then you may actually benefit from upgrading to a higher-capacity drive.

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


Harik posted:

Well, I did only ask if people trusted a used pro from amazon warehouse, not if it was right for normal usecase

One other thing I'm going to check is cache eviction stats - if the small (250gb evo) was causing too many evictions because the common working set was too large, it would lead to excessive wear. So maybe throwing a cheap 1TB at it would improve performance and lead to lower writes.

So I guess the answer to your original question is absolutely yes, but I still think you're looking at the wrong products. If you want to try a cheap 1 TB SSD though, try this one, which is AFAIK the cheapest one aside from used/refurb or other rare deals. It regularly goes to ~$130ish there on Rakuten (sold directly from Adata) although at the moment there's that 20% back in points which could certainly be valuable if you were willing to make future purchases there. The SU650 is DRAMless TLC (the SU800 has DRAM) though so endurance will be limited unless like you said, most of your important cached data are retained in the larger cache instead of being constantly rewritten. I'd be interested in hearing how it works out though.

Edit: eBay has a 15% off everything sale for the next several hours, use code PREGAME15. You can certainly use it on any odd SSDs you find there, and most notably that brings the Micron 1100 2 TB down to ~$250. (Platinum Micro is the seller that sells these on Rakuten, I trust them.) That's not the absolute lowest price it's been (and remember, this is not a retail drive) but it's still among the best deals on a per-capacity basis.

There's also this Team Group 480 GB SSD for $65, and while this is of questionable quality compared to the more reputable drives, it's more along the lines of something I'd throw into a caching role, especially for the price, as $65 is about as low as I've seen SSDs hit that price for that capacity with any regularity.

Atomizer fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Aug 28, 2018

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


I purchased an 840 Evo for my Razer Edge tablet a few years back at a price I'm ashamed to remember because I'm sure you can guess why; back then I knew Samsung SSDs were good but didn't know much else about them, and definitely wasn't aware of the charge decay issue. I mean it's updated and still works fine, but if I could do things over I'd have waited a few years and gotten an 850 or 860 Evo (because Samsung appears to be the only reputable company still making mSATA SSDs, and I'm not sure why they still do on top of that. )

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


I just did another SSD upgrade, it was an HDD cloned to a new m.2 drive so the SSD was being added while the HDD remains for game storage. Is there any way to force Windows to boot from the SSD without having to disconnect the HDD first? It's not a matter of boot order in the BIOS; Windows is still configured to boot from the original drive until it's no longer present. I didn't want to disconnect the HDD because it was staying in the system, and had already closed up the laptop after checking to make sure all the hardware worked (but before trying to boot from the new SSD.)

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Atomizer
Jun 24, 2007

Bote McBoteface. so what


The Iron Rose posted:

Windows isn't configured to do anything until it boots first - wipe the HDD, boot order in BIOS, you're fine.

Well that's a little more difficult to do because like I said it's only booting from the HDD, and you can't wipe the current system drive, so basically then it's either: unplug the HDD, boot from SSD, then plug the HDD in again, or you have to boot to any OS via a USB device to wipe the HDD and go from there. It didn't matter if the boot order was already changed in the BIOS to go to the SSD first, it would always go from the HDD.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply