SSD's

Yea basically spend a few bucks more but get Samsung.

dont want to hijack this thread but basically i am choosing SSD as well and have quite few choices. I am trying to get best bang for the buck. My choices:

Crucial MX300 275GB - 65€
SAMSUNG 850 EVO 250GB - 88€
ADATA SP550 240GB - 50€
ADATA SX900 128GB - 40€, used
Kingston Hyperx Fury 120GB - 30€


Space doesn't matter that much, could go for 240 or 120. Which of these SSD's would be the best for price/performance ratio?

Been looking to get an SSD for a small 2011 netbook I've been restoring.
Is there that much of a noise reduction with them? Currently the netbook is pretty fucking loud with wirring and I'm fairly sure it's the HDD.

>>57001417
Evo or Pro series if Samsung.
Intel is great but expensive.
Personally, they're the two brands I trust when it comes to SSD's, none other.
I mean, hell, Crucial sounds okay from what I'm told, but that's the absolute least you ought to consider.
DEFINITELY NOT KINGSTON. Not after the bait & switch.

dont fall for memespeeds

not at the current prices

Don't buy TLC drives.
Only MLC or SLC if you can afford it.

TLC is less reliable and often slower.

>>57001748
Look into my digital ssd. Solid ssd at a lesser price. Use all the popular controllers and what not.

File: bugs juice.jpg (20KB, 500x374px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x374px

>>57001417
>buying anything samshit....
do you have a death wish or something? like to live dangerously?

Also, Samsung EVO are crap
https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/thread/S56904395

>>57001417
Picked up a SanDisk Ultra II 960GB on Black Friday last year to store my game library. It's been great so far.

>>57001931
I cannot look into something. These are the choices i have, thats it. but thanks for trying to help.

>>57001748
>>57002025
850 Evo.

>>57001931
I use an analog SSD. It makes music sound better.

>>57002144
Thanks. Do you think those other SSD's are simply shit?

bamp

>>57002187
The MX300 and SP550 would be acceptable if they were about 30% less.

>picking Samsung unconditionally after the 840 series disaster
If you're spending that much money on something do some research instead of just picking the "good" brand's offering.

>>57001417
I had a 250gb 750 evo on my desktop and a 250gb 850 evo on my laptop, changed the 850 evo for that KingDian M280 msata that /csg/ shills about and it's the same shit.

I'm not paying the samshit "premium" again.

>>57001417

anandtech.com

i'm pretty sure that you will only get Samsung recommendations
even if there's cheaper options that work just as well outside of benchmarks
>tfw pretty much only use the "bad brands"
>ASRock mobo, PNY GPU, Hatachi+Seagate HDD, etc.
Never had a problem. Guess I'm just lucky. Or maybe it's all the same shit generally but people are stupid and pay a premium for no reason.

>>57002576
>asrock is bad

it is just asus

>>57002604
Most people will try to persuade you to buy Asus, Gigabyte, MSI even if ASRock does the job just as well. I don't get it.

I don't think Asus has owned ASRock for a long time.

>>57001417
>evo
You mean Pro. 10 year warranties.

File: vt180_front_lrg.03152016.jpg (62KB, 800x556px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 800x556px

Toshiba OCZ MASTER RACE REPORTING IN

JAPAN COMPANY BEST COMPANY

File: 71%2BRVGSaYHL._SL1500_.jpg (119KB, 1500x1056px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1500x1056px

SanDisk SSD PLUS 120GB for 22€ thats a steal right ? im in need of two

>>57001417

Has Anyone tried out the SK Hynix SSD's?

Kinda tempted by the 500GB one, reviews are good. I would go Samsung but I'm still salty about the 840 Evo's I got that had (and and still have) major firmwire issues that causes shitty performance

>>57002896
fuck where did you get this price? thats a fucking steal

>>57002896
I picked up one of these on Amazon last christmas for £30.

>>57003015
you will have to be german and not registered by Otto.de youll get a 20€ discount on your first order with a minimum value of 40€

just make more accounts for other family members /cats/dogs till you have enough

>>57002693
it's just a mobo, they're all the same. SSDs are different

>>57003109
Do they ship only to germany?

>>57003402
unfortunately yes

>>57001505
>wanting an exploding ssd

>>57001855
This
I also got a good deal recently on a 500gb sandisk SSD and it's performing well
About 5months of hard use and its still going

>>57003527
Samsung's SSDs are top fucking tier mate.

>>57001906
I think I had you redpill me on this the otherday.
Im looking for ssds but alot of them dont even say if they are slc or mlc. LIke the evo for example, noobegg only says "n/a" for the 120 and 240 evo, but the bigger one has a dropdown box that only has "mlc" in it. On their site they dont say shit about it either.

>>57002576
>PNY
>bad

>>57001417
basically get samsung or intel if you want quality.

other brands can be good but unless you find a deal where they are much more cheaper, you are better off just getting a samsung or intel.

>>57001833
SSDs have no moving parts so yeah I guess 0 noise is an infinitely large noise reduction

>>57004905
PNY is garbage.

Bought a XLR8 120GB SSD from them and the write speeds went from 350mb/s to 2mb/s in a year. Also bought a GeForce GPU from them a long time ago and had black screen of death issues.

>>57002604
They were ASUS owned for a while, but now they're spun off and owned by Pegatron. As such, they are now shit. Buy ASUS or Gigabyte.

>>57001417
I have a Radeon R7 240gb ssd (it's a re-badged ocz vertex, I think) and it's done great for over a year. I also have a Samsung 850 Evo 500gb and it's also done great for over a year. Both average 450-500mb/s on my shitty MSI 970 gaming motherboard. I think they might do a bit better on a better board, but they beat the shit out of the WD black hdd they replaced.

>>57005117
>PNY is garbage.
Ok bud

>>57005057
>Samsung
see 840 evo debacle
>Intel
overpriced out of consideration

>>57001748
I have a Crucial 256 and 480 GB and they're both working fine.

File: ocz vs samsung.png (65KB, 909x419px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 909x419px

>>57005184
I just did a benchmark. Here's the two drives going strong after over a year of use. OCZ on the left is the OS drive Samsung is the games drive.

I have a 840 evo with over 22terabytes of writes on it .

File: ssd bench.png (36KB, 409x373px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 409x373px

>>57005369
oh, and here's one I did months ago with the Samsung's ram cache feature turned on. I have it off right now because the numbers are only seen in bench marking and no one can seem to find the speed in real use. I haven't noticed a change since I turned it on shortly after I got it, then off 3 months ago. Pretty numbers though.

>>57004789
Not that anon but afaik evos are tlc and pros are mlc. Cant say for sure but i'd bet i am right

>>57005351
>>Samsung
>see 840 evo

Yes, the 840 is shit. But the 850/950/960 are top tier.

>>57001748
I'd go for the Mx200 if it's available. It uses MLC NAND and is faster than the MX300.

>>57001855
Crucial is fine. They make a lot of NAND chips for other companies, including Intel. Their parent company, Micron, is huge and makes even more stuff including RAM chips for other companies.

>>57002854
Do OCZ still have issues now that they're under Toshiba's control? I've stayed away from them ever since the Apex/Vertex issues from a few years ago.

>>57005459

>my husband didnt beat me this week

>>57005537
My understanding is they've ironed those problems out.

PLUS...they have a great new Advanced Warranty program.
https://ocz.com/us/support/advanced-warranty

Kingston V300 series has served me great for years, is cheaper, and has great speeds. Check them out.

>>57001417
is raid 0 worth it on two ssd?

File: image.jpg (2MB, 2338x1946px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2338x1946px

$170 for 512GB, and I don't normally bench hard drives, is this good?

samsung evo and sandisk ultra-2 are the best bet

you should not spend over $80 ($70 is ideal) for a 512gb, $130 for a 1tb, although $170 for an 850 evo or ultra-2 is okay if you need it immediately

>>57006250
Where the hell is a $130 terabyte SSD?

>>57006268
last black friday 1tb ultra-2 for $130, i bought one a couple months ago for $170 that is the highest you should spend on something of that capacity from one of those 2 brands

don't trust Kingston

File: CDM.png (39KB, 402x367px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 402x367px

Kingston HyperX Savage

It's okay if you can get with a discount or something like I did

>>57006208
Set your size to 50 MB and watch those numbers skyrocket, kek.

Note: this is actually how Samsung gets their advertised numbers, so they are technically reproducible (mine actually exceeds the advertised specs using this setting by a very small margin).

Also, for those wondering in this thread, no, m.2 Samsung drives of any flavor don't really have a tangible benefit outside benching over a standard, decent SSD (Crucial, other Samsung drives, etc.).

I've been buying SSDs since the ill-fated OCZ Vertex days and quite frankly, noticeable improvements in day-to-day operation, or even gaming operation, hasn't really happened in a couple years, so don't sweat buying merely a "decent" SSD to save over a top end; you'll likely never notice the difference.

I don't believe it's a hardware thing, because performance is benchable. It's likely a combination of other factors, including software and OSes simply not very optimized to take advantage of truly ridiculous hard drive performance.

>>57006047
Absolutely not. Like I stated in >>57006428, day-to-day or gaming operation isn't going to really see benefit from really extreme SSD performance over simply good SSD performance. Your hypothetical raid 0 SSD still isn't as good in performance specs as my single m.2 Samsung 950 Pro NVMe (regardless of what SATA SSDs you use they simply don't match up, and I don't know of any NVMe RAID capable boards), and I still don't notice anything really tangible, not even windows bootup time (it may be a hair faster, but not really the jump you'd expect).

>>57005571
>my husband is shit b-but at least he doesn't beat me

>>57001748
MX300

OCZ AMD r7 User here. Not that bad. Good price to size ratio and I've used it for over a year with not a single hitch. Crystal disk mark says it's perfect still.

>>57001417
I've only bought Samsung but I would also consider Intel.

Will samsung drives explode?

>>57006538
MX300 it is then, thanks

>>57005176
>Pegatron
Really? Fuck that shit, pegatron makes some really crappy mobos in prebuilt PCs.

>>57006006
Kingston V300 is weak. I'm using one as a scratch disk for photoshop.

File: SS_2016-09-23_03.png (75KB, 786x611px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 786x611px

>>57007251
MX300 is good if you can find it at a good price.

>>57001931
A digital solid state drive versus a...solid solid state drive?

>>57007400
Is 275GB for 65€ not a good deal ?

>>57007500
Compare it with a different brand SSD on par with the MX300 at the same or more capacity. I don't know europoor prices.
I got this MX300 750GB for 200 dollars.

Crucial has been around for longer than all these companies so go with them.

samsung is the other one.

everything else is unproven.

>>57001417
Just Google failure rates and literally pick whichever fails least. SSDs are rapid, speeds don't matter, the only things that matter are failure rates and drive size.

ADATA SP550 240GB 0.20 euro cents for gb seems to be the best value. Is this drive decent?

http://techreport.com/review/30109/mushkin-reactor-1tb-ssd-reviewed/7
Tech Report does a chart at the end of each of their reviews.

>>57001748
MX300 seems to be the best choice

File: PNY-CS2111-XLR8-480GB-Angle-2.jpg (348KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 1024x683px

>>57005117
Did you buy the ones with the meme cat?

File: 994x385_ic_high-yield-five-points-to-ponder[1].jpg (72KB, 994x385px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 994x385px

>>57001417
Hijacking the thread a bit. Are the Intel M.2 SSD worth it?

>>57001417

Crucial mx300 beats out Samsung EVO, and the brand is every bit as solid.

I just got one of their 525 GB models for $110. Better specs overall and 2 million hours MTBF.

>>57008660
yea i am just deciding right now wheter to get MX300 or SP550. Probably its a no brainer for the MX300?

I just buy Intel all the time, 5 years of warranty, no other manufacturer can beat that. One time Samsung was best choice, then there were problems, so fuck that.

Intel is priced cheap, uses MLC or SLC in most.
> inb4 Intel shill
I use 2x Kingston "SSDNow" drives in RAID, because they were on sale. It was a risk I took, and it worked. But never again, just going to buy an Intel next time.

>>57008830
>Intel 540

File: std02_img_01.png (54KB, 414x285px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 414x285px

>Cheaper than Samsung
>Access times BTFO's all others
>Hardware accelerated encryption
>Read 560MB/s, write 490MB/s, 100,000/85,000 IOPS
>TLC, but good performance

Is TLC that bad if the controller is good?

Personally never buying a Crucial again.
The health drops like crazy as soon as you start writing to it.

Plenty of people still at 100% health on Intel SSDs with more writes than me.

If I actually used the SSD for a scratch disk for Adobe and other programs it would probably die much faster.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother with this SSD when I have to baby it, not using it as a scratch disk, not using it for pagefiles, not using it as a temp dump for video that is being encoded or trans-coded, have to rely on my 1TB blacks for anything write intensive, and I have 3 of them clocking 49K, 56K and 59K hrs.

File: mx100.png (236KB, 672x294px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 672x294px

>>57009717
forgot pic, people have tested other drives to PB writes

>>57008830
>All four Intel 600p SSDs ship with a five-year warranty and have the same 72-terabyte TBW endurance rating. The TBW rating means the drive can only absorb up to 72TB of data during its lifetime. This is only the second time we've encountered an entire product series that employs a blanket TBW rating. To put this into perspective, the 128GB OCZ VX500 from a recent review also features a 72 TBW rating, but the 1TB VX500 offers up to 592 TBW. 72TB of data writes may or may not sound like a lot to you, but this is a very low endurance rating compared to other 1TB SSDs.
>How Intel's consumer SSDs expire once you surpass the endurance threshold is troubling. In an almost over-zealous move to protect user data, Intel instituted a feature on many of its existing SSDs that automatically switches it to a read-only mode once you surpass the endurance threshold. Surprisingly, the read-only state only lasts for a single boot cycle. After reboot, the SSD "locks" itself (which means you cannot access the data) to protect the user from any data loss due to the weakened flash. The operating system typically generates error notifications when an SSD switches into a read-only mode, so most users will restart without being aware that the SSD will be inaccessible upon the next reboot. The process to recover the data is unclear. We reached out to Intel to verify if the 600p also has this feature, but have yet to receive a response.

Stay away from Intel.

Samsung 850 EVO is goat.
I have a 1tb one, it's amazing.

>>57001417
>muh hivemind

Even if you're looking for muh popular SSDs to confirm your option, there's more than just Samsung. Sandisk are very popular (Ultra II, Extreme Pro) as are Crucial (MX300), and if you're going to count the poorfag popular choices, ADATA are a highly popular option.

>>57009927

So which one would you suggest? ADATA SP550 or Crucial MX300?

>>57010190
Checked both on http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/ and seems like SP550 is a better option?

>>57007543
yeah that about the price in finland
t. not him

i can get new 850 evo 250gb for 80€. Bargain?

So, this is a dumb question for /g/ but here goes.

How much faster will my computer be if I install the OS to a SSD? I recently just bought all the components for a new computer which I'm going to assemble myself. At the moment I'm running a prebuiilt toaster from 5 years ago.

>>57010636
about 10 times faster. check youtube videos

>>57009717
>MX100
Maybe that's your problem. MX300 charts would be nice.

>>57010769
Yeah, well MX100 were what /g/ recommended as the go to SSDs back when it was still new.

Fucking /g/ and their recommendations.

>>57001961

Lol stfu faggot.

The only good ssds are Samsung pro and bx/mx200

Anything else is absolute garbage.

Samsung Evo is Shit as well.

What is the best AHCI PCI-E SSD? Is it the SM951?

I'm looking to buy a new SSD to spice up my 2 years old build, since I'm formatting and installing W10 on it anyways.

My motherboards supports pcie m.2 ssd's, but I have no idea what to buy.
Should I just get a 250gb 850 EVO SSD? Or is M.2 worth it? It'd be the system partition SSD, by the way, and I do a ton of photo work on this PC.

>>57011403

Sm961
960 pro

>>57011451

Nvm those are nvme.

>>57002507
Also got a (120GB) KingDian and it is good so far.

>>57011450
>I do a ton of photo work on this PC.
Using DXO or even fucking Corel's software rather than Lightroom will do more than a SSD.

But sure, a SSD will help.

>>57011498
I'm working, not playing, so I need powerful software I can trust. I have no complaints with Adobe's suit in any case, I currently have a 120gb ssd that will become my "shit that needs to be done" partition. (Right now all my work sits on a WD Black, not the SSD)

I was just wondering if M.2 was worth it, not if SSDs were worth it.

>>57011522
> so I need powerful software I can trust
How is any of it not something you can trust? It will either work for you or not.

Either way, DXO is the more professional software for editing photos anyhow, so...

> Right now all my work sits on a WD Black, not the SSD
It is actually fast enough to read those 20-40MB RAW files in very little time, even if a SSD is surely a little faster yet.

> I was just wondering if M.2 was worth it, not if SSDs were worth it.
It won't really help you over another, plain old SATA SSD.

Again, what bottlenecks most modern computers for photo editing is the poorly written Adobe crapware people are working with.

File: Selection_533.png (16KB, 412x195px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 412x195px

>>57011396
Use a comma to set off parenthetical elements.

850 Evo and nothing else

>buying SSD

File: s-l300.jpg (15KB, 300x257px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x257px

>used jankpad that boots off a 64gb msata from "sk hynix" whoever the fuck they are. research suggests it may have beensalvaged from a surface pro
>whatever man, it works

>>57015782

>from "sk hynix" whoever the fuck they are

REEE get the fuck out you tech-illiterate faggot

>>57015910
yeah ok lets just maintain a mile-long speadsheet to keep track every time some jughead company changes its name

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-11 at 9.17.50 am.png (86KB, 308x307px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 308x307px

>>57007405
I think this is what he means.
I'm trialling a couple right now.

>>57016030
Really nigga?

>>57015782
>"sk hynix" whoever the fuck they are
>whoever the fuck they are
fucking normies

File: 1475985812679.webm (773KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

773KB, 1600x900px

>>57010636
It's like going from cassette tapes to CDs.

>>57009729
>those temperatures
Clean your fucking PC.

>>57018064
That's not a great analogy for speed increasing anon.

>>57018165
Rewinding tapes is fucking annoying.

>>57008660
For most users any SSD that's at least half-decent will be viewed as "the same shit".
The only thing Samsung has that everyone else doesn't (at the moment, will change in the future) is 3D TLC memory they use on the EVOs, meaning they are theoretically way more reliable than any other mainstream TLC drive. But that doesn't mean it will be noticeable faster, or faster at all to begin with. Also, even with "lower" reliability, any other non-3D-NAND SSD is still way more reliable than any home user needs a SSD to be.

>>57009410
The problem with TLC is faster degration over time, not speed.

>>57001417
Samsung for best SSDs one the marked as long we dont talk about PCI-E SSD were INTEL is king, Crucial>Sandisk for budget avoid the rest because its lottery.

File: ssd_750_evo_549x412.jpg (14KB, 549x412px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 549x412px

Any thoughts on the 750 EVO, anons?

File: 8-inch-floppy.jpg (14KB, 430x319px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 430x319px

>>57001855
This.

I would only run Samsung or Intel in my primary system.

Kingston has GREAT RMA/warranty service so I wouldn't be too afraid to run them in something less important. Other possibly reasonable choices for 2nd tier SSDs are Crucial, Sandisk(Western Digital now), ADATA, Seagate, and Corsair.

Get:
Samsung
Intel

I'm a cheap bastard:
Sandisk

Avoid:
Crucial
Kingston
Anything that isn't Samsung or Intel

>>57001855

Intel use MLC memory. So, intel>>>>>Samsung, crucial, SanDisk and other's shit!

File: 816ARa7opbL._SL1500_.png (491KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 1500x1000px

>>57018794
No 3D VNAND Technology

avoid

850 EVO and up only

>>57021438
>avoid Crucial

Crucial is actually making a comeback trying to recreate Samsung's layered and more reliable V-NAND bullshit shit.

Other than that, yes it technically should be on the avoid list.

>>57001417
Avoid Kingston like the plague, prefer Crucial if you're low on budget, otherwise go all out and get a Samsung EVO.

I have a Oct vertex 150 120gb is that considered good in terms of speed and reliability?

SSDs are more or less interchangeable. Try buying from a company from your country.

Employing fellow citizens is kind of nice.

>>57001417
Crucial or Samsung. Other brands are shit.

>>57007400
>those close buttons
>those dubs
Confirmed homosexual

>>57021438

The thing about being cheap is that the best way to be cheap is often to spend more money initially so you save down the road.

>Samsung
Enjoy the botnet