SSD

please respond

Intel is worth the extra cost
Samsung is not
If you just what a cheapo decent SSD, SanDick is ok.

Get at least 256GB.

>>58751201
Sk hynix. Poor mans 850 evo. Try for 250gb, it's quicker and much more cost effective.

The 850 evo is perfectly fine, ignore the /g/ memes about it. Just avoid 120gb and get at least a 250gb though

Bought the Samsung evo, the only thing i regret is that i didnt get the 500gb one

>>58751810
>>58751759
>>58751750
Any specific reason to go for 250gb instead of 120gb? Or just that it's more cost efficient for storage?

>>58751854
I have a 250gb evo for OS and a 500gb mx300 for storage and games and it's the perfect combo. Just get another ssd and move everything across apart from OS partition and maybe a few core programs, the load times are negligible

>>58751881
250gb will provide better performance and a longer lifespan, as well as being more cost effective

>>58751881
They are slower because of smaller cache and endurance ratings are about half.
Seriously, get 250

>>58751201
1. Get at least 250GB. If you want the sweet spot, 500GB
2. Avoid DRAMless TLC drives, like Patriot Spark and Sandisk SSD Plus G26 (the G25 is fine)
3. Don't touch the Kingston V300 and Crucial BX200
Other than that, have fun!

>>58752474
Any reason to avoid Kingston?

>>58751201
If you want cheap and good, get a Kingdian S280 120GB or a Netac

If you want reliable get a 250gb Intel or Samsung

Running on a Samsung Pro 950 currently, 250gb (of which 180 are empty)

>>58752690
Depends. Their speeds are usually low and/or lower than advertised. They're good for endurance though.

>>58751201
>pay 4 times the prices
>less storage capacity
>better boot time
>current year supposed to be better times than current year - 10