Best SSD Drive - 240/256GB

Hey everyone,

I have been contemplating getting a 128GB drive but I noticed that I will be using up 80GB off the bat. 23GB windows installation, 6GB of program files, and 50GB of program files (x86). I have 4 games installed, so that is probably taking up around 20-30GB. Either way, I am taking up more or less 80GB of space. So just to be safe I was thinking about a 240/256GB drive but they are expensive and are fairly new and thus do not have too many great reviews out there. There is a pool, so please vote. Feel free to post why you voted for that SSD.

If you think I will be fine with a 128GB drive, then let me know. I don't see myself taking up more than 110GB at any given time. If I have a 256GB drive I will probably be taking up as much as I can, maybe ~200GB.

Thanks

 

Nobody knows. If you asked us 3-4 months from now we could have an answer

 

Yeah, true. But waiting for that long will make it more difficult to easily get my files together on my drive as I will have more things on there.

How much lower will the prices be in 3-4 months?

 

What is "best" for you: fastest, most reliable, best value for money or?

Personally I think the Crucial M4 has the best mixture of speed, reliability and price. (when the price is right)

Vertex 3 is a little faster but reliability is a big question mark.

 

Yes, I know. I gave you rep for your constant assistance. The thing is though, the price is $30 more than it was a few days ago and I realized I already am using 80GB for program files and windows installation which leaves me with 40GB left (and the 256gb drives have much faster write speeds I am thinking I could go for a 256GB drive). Plus, spending $250-$500 for a component is not something to do overnight. I want to get as much info as possible because this is a big investment and I want the best possible product. I have heard so many mixed reviews and opinions and this and that, and I am confused at this point lol.

There is nothing better than hearing from the people who have the products, though.

 

Well the truth is that no one will be able to tell the difference in performance between these three drives.

So it makes sense to decide on factors as reliability and price.

Reliability of the Marvell controller that Crucial and Intel use is very good. For more info see here: http://forum.notebookreview.com/sol...tomer-reviews-current-ssds-who-will-help.html

I ordered the Crucial M4 last week, will get it this week. I will let you know how I like it.

 

C300 seems a good choice also, its got that SATAIII speed and a cost quite competitive with the sales floating about.

$200 for the $128gb and $400 for the 256GB

 

Performance: They are all just about the same
Reliability: Nobody knows since they are all new and haven`t been in the marked for so long. Intel and Crucial have a great SSD history with their drives having very little problems, 3% unsatisfied customers at Newegg for both. Vertex 2 was a complete disaster. OCZ scammed people with giving them 25nm SSDs instead of 34nm.
Price: Intel 510 250GB $600. Crucial M4 256GB $520. Vertex 3 240GB $550. (Newegg)

M4 will suffer a lot with enough stress since it have poor garbage collection compared to Intel and OCZ. While doing 4K random writes all the mentioned drives will experience increased latency EXCEPT M4 who get only a very small increase in latency. That is because 510 and Vertex 3 starts doing garbage collection instantly while M4 saves it for later. This means that with enough load it will have greatly reduced performance compared to the other drives. It is to the point that even Intel 320 perform better.
Intel 320:

Crucial M4:

The Crucial m4 (Micron C400) SSD Review - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

But that said M4 have had lots of good reviews and is probably a very good drive if you don`t stress it with a very hard workload. I prefer Intel although it is almost $100 more, but that is because of past experience. All of them are very good drives, but i personally will not even consider Vertex 3.

 

Sure for an OS without TRIM the M4 is not a good option. Windows 7 has TRIM though. That's why Anand says:

Techreport showed that TRIM seems to be working fine after their torture test:


There's is one valid concern with the M4 that Tomshardware showed. There's seems to be performance degradation when the drive is completely full. So it would be best to keep at least 10% empty space, possibly more.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-ssd-320-crucial-m4-realssd-c400,2908-4.html

 

You left out the part where Anandtech said:

I am not shure what they mean by "sufficiently". Could be something most users won`t put the drive through anyways.

 

And you left out his conclusion

In other words Anand really doesn't know how this drive behaves over a few months. And neither do we know about Vertex 3 or Intel 510.

Extreme users have reason to go for Intel 510 though, it uses 34nm NAND and firmware seem reliable unless you have a Mac. Intel 510 has a lot of problems with Macs.

 

Yeah shure. Anandtech does not know all details on how the controller acts and how the drive works. But they did found out that Intel and Vertex had GC in real time and Crucial had very little.

I suspect that the performance hit will only happen if you put the drive through very hard workload. But like you and Anandtech said, we don`t know. Either way, the M4 have many good reviews.

 

Anand's complaint about GC on the M4 arised when he filled the drive entirely.

So yeah sure if you want to fill the drive entirely the M4 is not a good choice. It's the cost of zero percent over-provisioning, as Tomshardware explained quite well.

 

No the performance problems already starts on 15GB. Performance is actually better when it is full. Probably because it have started the GC a little earlier and it catches up

 

It says it pretty clearly in the article: "Now let's fill the drive with data".

And no it doesn't perform better when full, as can be seen in the Tomshardware article I linked to on the previous page.

 

A come on dude. Now you are just rowing your boat
Look at this graph. What they meant about "Lets fill the drive with data" was to see how the drive performed when it was 10% full, 20% full, 30% full and upwards. And i didn`t mean that it performs better when it full vs 10% full. What i meant was that after enough stress it will start GC and performance will increase. Of course the drive is faster if you test a 10% drive vs a full drive with a simple task like file transfer.

 

Now I see where you are coming from. You're reading HDTach entirely different than I do.

I've used HDTach before and as far as I know the X asis indicates the read speed at that specific part of the drive. It's just one snapshot. As far as I know there is no result posted of "10% full, 20% full, 30% full and upwards.".

 

Huh? Ok then i am really sorry if i read it wrong. But question: If they read a "part" of the drive, shouldn`t it be full to be able to look at that part? But either way you read it, you can agree that 20MB is very low right? Look at the Intel 320 graph. It is as low as 40MB but it is just a fraction of the time/small "parts". It fluctate much higher than M4 and reaches the highest speed of 180MB halfway through.

 

You can run HDTach on a full drive or on an empty drive. Judging by the first HDTach table I think Anand runs it first on an empty drive. I don't know about the after results *. For consistency it would make most sense to do that on an empty drive too.

Either way you've raised a valid point that there are some things to look at when buying this drive. I just don't think it's concern for the normal laptop user, except for the fact that it seems better to always keep ~10GB free space on the M4. This issue doesn't occur on Intel 510 but that has 6GB less space anyway.

I will be reveiving a Crucial M4 this week and I will be sure to run some tests myself. For what it's worth, I've had a C300 before and never had problems with performance degradation with that.

* edit: actually the constant read speeds seem to indicate that all HDTach benchmark were run on empty drives. On a drive with data read speeds should fluctuate. For example:

 

Nice. I am looking forward to hearing about your experience with it

 

So I read all the posts and it seems that on top of the 128GB M4 being about 120GB and needed 10% of free space, that leaves me with 108GB for storage. The fact that I am taking up 80GB right now with only 4 games installed and all my programs makes me a bit uneasy. I should have enough space but then again I'm gonna have to be thinking about it. Plus, I will have to move some things to my 750GB.

I see that the Intel 510 250GB has won the hearts of the people with 5 votes. Can anybody who voted for the Intel chime in as to why they voted for it?

It suffers from quite poor random read/write speeds.



It has fast sequential speeds though.

Based on all the tests, the Vertex 3 seems like the king. The only question would be reliability.

 

this is random read. At 40MB/s, it means a lot can go on. What kind of random activity need that ? The big jump is from VelociRaptor to SSD. Passing that(0.68 -> 9MB/s), it becomes who is faster in the benchmark, at least in laptop/notebook usage.

 

Well random read and write speeds are important for real world performance. Sequential read and write will only help when you have some huge files going on.

 

Everything (access times, random and sequential performance, I/O etc) is important for real world performance.

Sequential performance is not just important for large file copies. It also influences booting and launching for example.

You can't accurately predict real world performance based on 4K performance. Compare Crucial C300 with Intel 510 for example: Intel has lower 4K performance , but it beats the Crucial C300 hands down.

If you want to know real world performance you have to look at real world benchmarks. There is no shortcut.

 

4K random (i.e. IOPS) has been overly emphasized. It was a very valid measure in the HDD -> SSD transition, but within SSD, it usually is an non-issue due to the 'fast enough and becomes hard to notice' reason.

My question is still, what kind of activity can staturate 40MB/s random read(that is the 510 figure) ?

 

Well said and fully agreed.

 

OK - here's a crazy question for the SSD / notebook demi-gods!

I've been trying to figure out a second SSD for my new notebook - a lenovo W520. I should have the W520 within (hopefully!) 1.5 week's time.

I have a quadcore and 16GB ram in the machine. I've also purchased an intel 310 80GB mSATA to use for boot and other related stuff.

However, like the OP, I really would like to have about ~240 - 256GB of SSD storage on the notebook (yes, some of if for games, STEAM, etc...). As you might know - this notebook can hold up to three drives (1 x SATA II and 2 x SATA III), so I'm planning on having the 80GB 310, a second SSD and the original 500GB 7200 drive for basic stuff such as movies, music, etc...

The computer is a work computer and will mostly be running 3D CAD software (heavy duty modeling is why I bought this notebook) as well as standard office apps, browsers and such.

Right now, none of the new SATA III drives really seem to have the features that I want: the Intel 510 is expensive and there seem to be issues with it. The SF based drives are fast, but reliability has to be paramount for me. Also, data encryption would be really, really helpful as I do travel a lot with the notebook and loosing it (i.e. theft) would be bad since it will have company files on it. So, from the encryption standpoint, the Intel drives seem to make the most sense.

I'm thinking then that I might consider a 160GB 320 Intel drive (and I know it's write performance will be a bit crippled compared to the larger Intel 320 drives). I know it's SATA II (and my notebook supports two SATA III drives!), but the boot drive is also mSATA (so hence SATA II) and really - how much difference am I going to notice going to a SATA II drive from a SATA III drive in regular daily usage? My file sizes are in the 10s or 100s of MB, not massive GB files. Also, it seems that the Intel 320 drives can come close to maximizing their SATA II performance in almost every aspect whereas most of the SATA III drives only hit peak SATA III performance in a few benchmarks. So, SATA III real world performance looks to be about 40-50% above SATA II and only in really specific situations. And again, talking about variations in SSDs is pretty small when comparing them to HDDs

I'm thinking that I can get the Intel 320 160GB, get FDE on it, have it work probably really well for what i'm doing and probably at a later date (i.e. later on this year or early next year), pick up a new ~250GB SATA III drive that probably has all the function, features and performance and none of the flakiness that exists now in the early SATA III drives.

Am I crazy, or is this a total reasonable decision?

Thanks!

 

personally i would sell the 80G and get a 320 160GB as that is the sweet spot of the 320 line. Or if budget allowed, a 320 300GB. Buying an additional SSD just for the extra 'sequential' speed doesn't worth it, IMO.

edit:
oh, get things mixed up. 320 doesn't have mSata.

 

C300 IMO, very competitive price, performance is still good, its a known drive and issues appear to be taken care of by now. Its 34nm if you're paranoid about 25nm write count going down, but still 6gbps sata drive.

C400/M4 may end up the same, but its a bit more of an unknown and not sure how pricing has worked out since its still new.

If you don't care about 6gbps yet and want a safe bet, 320 is out and competitive price, it can be had for MSRP.

If you have the very neat option for msata and 40/80gb is enough for OS/programs/etc, 310 is pretty much a G2 and a no brainer for combo storage on a laptop with a hard drive.

 

I have 2 Vertex drives. One died and needed to be replaced. It was but I was down for a few days. No questions. Vertex 3 is the fastest drive but I'm still wary of the new SF controller.

Personally I like Crucial and Intel. You can see in my sig what I got.

 

@ biff2bart, you see that you got the second person (chimpanzee) vouching for selling the 80GB mSATA drive. You're better off with one large SSD like said before in your original thread.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/sol...age/574384-ssd-consideration-lenovo-w520.html

 

I see. It seems like the C300, although a bit cheaper, doesn't offer the performance that I would like to have. I would hope to keep this SSD for at least 3-4 years.

How has the Intel been? The OCZ, although prone to failure, is clearly the best drive out there. I'd say the Intel and M4 follow up...the issue with the Intel is the horrible random r/w. Now, I know that at the end of this year there will be new cherrywood drives but I don't want to wait 5-7 months.

 

No OCZ is not "clearly" the best drive out there. And Intel does not have horrible Read/Write. What is the point in reading here when you are biased and don`t want to listen to us?!

Both chimpanzee and Phil explained to you why the numbers don`t matter.

 

Horrible when compared to other drives of the same spec.

Now look...if OCZ is not the clear winner, then I guess it comes down to 1 thing here...the cheapest and most reliable drive. I guess we will be telling Anandtech and Hardwareheaven to close up shop because those benchmarks don't mean anything.

 

You made a very good point. If you want to buy an SSD so as to compare to other drives, get the OCZ Vertex 3 and remember to run only ATTO. You get the fastest drive for this purpose.

For many other people, they want to get an SSD to improve their productivity.

Without knowing the intend, it is meaningless to say 'best'.

 

Of course.

Crucial m4 256GB SSD (C400) Review - File Copy Tests


Why does the Intel have nearly the fastest speeds here?

It seems like it doesn't even matter at this point. Just depends on which drive is worth the price.

 

Intel 510 copies fast because of high sequential speeds AND the fact that it reaches those speeds with all data.

Vertex 3 can only reach top speeds with compressible data.

And I agree Vertex 3 is generally the fastest drive out there (besides copying). I don't think real world failure rates will be above 5%. And even if it fails you can RMA it.

I understand the people that want the most reliable SSD and I also understand the people that want the fastest SSD even if it's a little less reliable.

And if you really want the fastest of all the Vertex 3 MAXIO should be good.

PS. Tiller counted the difference between Intel 510 and Vertex 3 of all HH's realworld benchmarks combined. It was something like 4 seconds on 800 seconds total iirc. That's 0.5% real world difference. Crucial M4 does a little better than Intel 510 I thought.

 

Let us make a SSD championship on this site. Atleast then Vertex 3 owners could have something to brag about

The rest of us will see what is what and choose reliability and personal references when buying one of the new generation SSDs

THAT i can agree on. But to say it is "clearly" the fastest when it is down to a few seconds here and there, is just buying OCZ marketing propaganda.

How is it horrible when there doesn`t exist any likely scenarios that can even saturate the "horrible" 4Ks the Intel have? Here in Norway we use the phrase" Butter on pork" when something is exaggerated...

Hardwareheaven is one of the few sites that actually put real life tests in to their reviews. Anandtech however are just throwing synthetic tests and benchmarks and say "Hey look at this awesome SSD. Look at the score" but rarely bother to say what the 2000 points mean in productivity. However there are other interesting aspects Anandtech reviews write about that very few people pay attention to, and that is how good the drives are with Garbage collection, how the controllers react to stuff, life expectancy, NAND quality etc. All very important. And just because this generation hit a performance limit where all SSDs are basicly alike in performance, doesn`t mean we can get faster ones later. So i will continue to read their reviews and hope for the best although i have my doubts that the next one will be much better.

 

After seeing the benchmarks I want to change my vote: Vertex 3 MAXIOPS.



This drive is going to be fast, not just in synthetic benchmarks.

 

I`m trying to find CDM of a 120GB Vertex 3 but find only 240GB

EDIT: Found one from a user, but he was complaining about 4K due to some throttle issue with the Alienware R3 so you can probably add some more there. But DANG. That is some sick difference between the versions

 

I don't see any Vertex 3 Max IOPS drive in stock. But it looks like Amazon sells it for $570.

 

Well the Vertex 3 seems like it is prone to a lot of failures still. The M4 has bad garbage collection. The 240GB Intel doesn't have the best reviews on Newegg either...Decisions...

 

You have to hit the M4 with an extreme workload to experience the delayed GC. In all seriousness it have recieved many good reviews. Crucial and Intel are the safest bet. Yup the Vertex 240GB could have the same problems as Vertex 2

 

So it looks like it is going to be between the 160GB Intel 320 or the 256GB Crucial M4. I know JR.com has the 256GB M4 for $458. Idk how long this sale will last, perhaps it will end tonight? Otherwise the Intel 510 doesn't seem worth it, unless there will be a firmware update tha will improve random speeds?

 

It is cheaper than amazon $480 and newegg $520, so yeah
If you want 160GB you have Intel 320 since everything else is either 128GB or 256GB. But it is SATA 2 and is much slower and it would have been a shame to put it inside in that R3

 

I see

Say I buy an M4 256GB for $458, cause that seems like the best option. However, new drives come out Q4 of 2011 or Q1 of 2012. What if I want to sell my M4. How much do you think I could get for it once the new drives come out Q4 of 2011 or Q1 or 2012 since it retails around like $500?

 

I have no idea. Have my doubts that the new SSDs will be much better than your M4 anyway. Maybe closer to the SATA 3 limit (600 MB/s) but Vertex 3 is almost there and it is marginally faster than 510/M4 anyway. Increasing 4K won`t do much either because no program/workload won`t even "use up" the little 4K`s 510 have.

 

I see. So basically for the price of $450 the M4 seems like it is the best deal out there. Beats the $600 Intel and $550 OCZ. Are there any cons about this drive?

 

Well it is brand new so nobody knows how reliable it will be. As an early adopter you are the guniea pig so thread with caution.

Anandtech says

 

Yes I know. The Intel 160GB is $300 on Buy.com
M4 256GB is worth $450?

I kinda don't want to buy the 8GB HyperX kit now lol.