Whats the best brand for SSDs guys? Also does write speed matter

>>57486541
OCZ, Toshiba, Intel, Samsung.

Stick with a name brand. If you have never used an SSD before then speeds won't matter as much because it's your first SSD and will be 3 times faster than mechanical anyway.

>>57486541
My samsung is shit, get a cheap sandisk, its best for the buck.

>>57486541
Samsung, Crucial (only this 4 models mx100, bx100, M550, mx200), sandisk in that order. Others have good models here and there.

>>57486699
>mfw I have both Samsung and Crucial

awww yis

>>57486570
Samsung are just good for m2 ssd's, admittedly their 2.5" ssd's (much like most others nowadays) are limited so in that case, it's better to go with a (somewhat) cheaper alternative, like Crucial.

>>57486699
What about the mx300?

>>57486940
Is Samsung 850 Evo and 750 Evo worth the money?

850 has a 5 years guarantee.

>>57486541
new tech, try not to get chink'd
go for crucial, samsung, maybe OCZ

Adata's NEW ssd is pretty good, for a nice price. SU800 series.

the controller is more important than the brand. don't get samsung ssds, their hardware is good but samsung soft-/firmware has a long history of data corruption bugs.

>>57487378
What do you recommend man?

Crucial or Samsung would be my pick.

Samsung and intel non budget series.

Never get OCZ unless you want a drive that you have to replace every 3 months.

File: image.jpg (94KB, 535x393px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 535x393px

my Intel 730 drive is overbuilt, it has capacitors and failsafes and shit, and the controller intel uses on their better stuff
And it got a skull

>>57487393
depends on what you need. if you just want something that works and don't care too much about performance, low end crucial is usually ok, so is sandisk. don't get the performance stuff wrong, any ssd made in the last 5 years is good enough for most desktop use cases, even gaming (mostly seq reads).
if you do need high random r/w performance, because you're running a database or a build server with a lot of load, intel is good but kinda expensive. Toshiba/Mushkin and higher end crucial are good for high single-user loads but (at least from my limited experience) tend to fail more often. if you do have backups of your data (you should), that's not really a big deal. if you have backups *and* don't care about performance you can usually even get no-name stuff, because if they fail they usually just die and don't corrupt your data over time.

>>57487212
I have one 850 Evo M.2 and it is worth it. Everything works like a charm.

>buy a fuckload of $50 OCZ drives
>put them in RAID 5 or 6
>faster than any SSD in the world, with failsafes

>>57486541
It's very hard to tell.
Most SSDs cover their chips with a spec label so you can't inspect the RAM and controller chips. Even then, some chips are buffed to remove branding, some have custom branding and others have counterfeit branding.
If you remove the label in an attempt to see what you've bought, there goes your warrantee anyway.
Buy from reputable sellers. That's your only hope. Even price is no guarantee.

>>57488718
Isnt there some review guy that opens them to see whats inside?

>>57487234
>>57486560

>OCZ

Is this a troll thread?

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/

There are variations in importance of speed, the SSD speeds vary in a number of categories beyond simple read and write access. As such this site weighted the average use of a consumer and came up with a decent averaging system which more accurately reflects the performance of an individual drive. What's even better is they collect data from individual's PCs, and their varying states (best and worst benches under the product). I suggest perusing it.

>>57488912
Post-Toshiba OCZ

m.2 PCI is the future, 4x times the speed of an sata3 SSD

>>57486541
Samsung, Intel, and Crucial (Micron) are your best bets.

>>57486541
I fell into the 240GB samsung 850 EVO meme and regret it.

Could've bought a kingdian s280 from aliexpress with double the storage and same speed for the same price.