Best SSD for gaming?

I'm sorry for probably the 100th "which ssd should I get" thread but I haven't been able to find any information specific to my situation. I want the absolute best ~120 GB SSD for gaming. My pc will be SATA III (its a laptop) and any bonuses to battery life would be great. I'm aware Intels have the best reliability, and reliability is a very important thing to me since I don't like headaches with stuff failing. Even with Intel though, you have the G2, the G3, and th 510 series. Which of these would be the best for gaming (and possibly battery life) on a SATA III laptop, assuming the only other things I'd be doing are watching HD videos stored on my laptop, surfing the internet, or using basic microsoft office programs for school, so increased performance in those areas would also be wanted.

If possible, I'd also appreciate an explanation of why you recommend this specific SSD and how it relates to the other needs. Thanks for your help!

 

Is there a budget to take into account? Games take up a lot of room. SSD's also won't give you too much benefit in some games, depends on the game really.

 

Yeah Yeah, the budget is 200-300ish that's why I asked for ~120 GB. I won't be storing anything else on it except Windows 7 and my programs, so that leaves ~40 GB for games, which is more than enough at any given time, because I'd play the games, finish them, then transfer them to my secondary HDD. I just want the best performance for normal Microsoft office, playing videos, and gaming. Oh, and if they start up Windows 7 faster than other SSDs or opens up programs really fast I'd like that.

 

What laptop are we talking about?

If it's a normal 15" notebook it's unlikely you'll notice any battery life differences.

 

Alienware M17x R3.

 

The real life differences between V3, Intel 510 and M4 are very small.
Crucial m4 256GB SSD (C400) Review - Load Times

Which ever you take, you're unlikely to notice the difference in every day usage.

Vertex 3 doesn't have good idle battery life, so 510 may be a better choice. But your notebook is so big and power consuming, that 1 watt more or less makes very little difference.

 

But with the 510, I also noticed very low 4k read/writes. What's the consequence of that benchmark? And am I going to see any real speed boosts from SATA III drives, or will SATA II suffice if all I care about is opening programs, and gaming?

 

4K read/writes are high enough not to notice any difference for normal single user usage. Check Anandtech for explanation.

SATA III will be a little quicker. Just check the Corsair Force 240 scores in the Hardwareheaven review it's very similar to 320 performance. Crucial m4 256GB SSD (C400) Review - Load Times

 

Alright, thanks.

I didn't really see an explanation on Anandetch regarding 4k reads/writes (or at least the one you were referring to).

 

For my Vostro 1500 I noticed a huge difference in battery life going to an SSD (not an official benchmark) though the old Hitachi drive was starting to fail. Though for lower power laptops, an SSD can make a significant difference.

As it's been stated above, SSDs will only decrease load times not help with overall performance. Your M17xR3 should cover the GPU field better than most laptops.

 

Oh yeah, I'm aware the GPU will be powering the games. I just meant for loading times or faster environment graphics loading. Also for performance with loading programs/OS.

 

I was wondering the same thing..Although mine is a SATA 2, and I would also like to know which ssd installs/uninstalls the fastest as well as boots windows/opens apps/runs games/loads game levels fastest..And i won't be needing great copy/pasting speeds as I won't have any music/vids/pics on it..Basically just a boot drive with office, a browser, some small apps, and games..Power consumption would also be great but not important enough for me to sacrifice performance for bat life (graphics will probably eat away battery life anyway)..And also I guess a drive who's write speed won't degrade over time because of frequent installing/uninstalling of games..

 

any current ssd will probably satisfy your needs imo. i mean, unless you see someone on here complaining about the drive being terrible, you probably wont have an issue.

some drives are going to be better then others on battery, but i think we're talking minutes of difference so it probably wont really matter

it seems when talking about ssd's (or other computer parts in general) there's no definite answers to what will be the fastest/best/most incredible. all the drives are close to similar performance when comparing it to a platter drive. it depends on your usage patterns.

once you select a drive and get it in your machine, you're more than likely going to be happy with it. benchmarks are just numbers imo. it's all about how it feels to you once you get everything set up. if you've never had an ssd before, you're going to be blown away if you're made of money, you may have used various ssd's for some time now, and you may notice a difference.

for the "average users" on here with ssd's who have switched to a different ssd, have you honestly seen a large jump in performance? honestly? i'm not talking to those that are using gigs a day, running servers, or whater else. also, defective drives dont count lol. just average joe, use my pc to game, surf, use office, watch videos kinda person.

we still have any of those kind people on here?

 

If that's the case then I guess intel would be the best choice..Cause the reliability outweight the millisecond gains from other drives..?

 

Nobody knows how reliable Samsung 470, Corsair Force or Crucial C300 are.

Intel seems to be a reliable choice though, I would agree with that.

 

Yes but sadly there are no Samsung 470s here..And Corsair is quite pricy at $280..intel is around $270 and G.skill is the cheapest at around $260..All with shop warranty so no problems having it replaced..Would be great if I don't have to have it replaced in the 1st place tho..

 

Yeah, when I'm goin to invest in something, I like to do it right the first time even if it costs a bit more..

 

In my case the intel is actually cheaper than the Corsair Force..Which makes the intel one of the cheaper choices..

 

Oh, lol. Ok you looking at a G2 or thinking about a G3? Id recommend the G3. Seems they use the same controller but it has unlocked features, and a few other improvements. Intel is also projecting That it will be more reliable than their G2's (that were already super reliable).. Plus it has higher randoms so that'll help with gaming (not that you'll notice).. Probably will around $300 for the 160gb or only $220 for the 120gb

 

I don't think the G3 will be available here any time soon.. The G2 costs $274..I guess this is because of shipping costs as well as taxes and stuff..It does have to travel from around the world just to get to here lol..but hopefully the G2 gets cheaper..but I don't see that happening since there are only a few people selling ssds here..So I don't see any reason for them to reduce their price..

 

For a SSD, may be ask a friend to buy in USA and mail it to you ? It is very light and don't need to worry about dropping etc.

 

Going by the application open times on Laptopmag, it's unlikely you'll notice any game loading difference between G2 and G3.

 

Could work but that involves having someone send it via mail plus I wouldn't have the shop warranty I could have here..i think total costs would be somewhere near the price of the product here anyway..Minus the hassle of contacting someone from the USA..I might even go for the G.skill Phoenix Pro cause it's cheaper plus it's a sandforce..Not to mention the shop owner says he's gonna let the rma process pass through him which means less hassle for me as long as it's within the warranty period..The only concern now I guess is if the drive fails, will I be paying for shipping or him in which case I'm guessing I will..So back to the Intel x25-m G2 again lol..

 

So if I'm getting the Alienware m17x which supports SATA III, should I go with the 510 series, or better to go with the cheaper 320 if I won't notice much of a difference with SATA III for my basic tasks?

 

Since you don't seem to be doing anything that would warrant the high sequential numbers of the 510, I'd go with either a 320 (G3) or even a G2. Well, actually, I'd look into some of the other offerings, but given the options you initially listed, I'd go with those 2.

 

What do you mean by other offerings? Other companies?

 

Yes, most particularly the Samsung 470 (even though it's SATA II), or the Micron offerings (C300 and C400/M4). Sandforce is, of course, also always an option.

 

Given that you have spent big bucks for the Alienware, which also happens to be a gaming machine. I would suggest that you try your luck and pick only newest SATA 3 models, i.e. C400/M4/510/SF 2xxxx.

Why pair it with an old interface model(even though you may not notice the difference) ?

 

What chimpanzee said..If you're getting an M17x then I'd recommend getting a newer SATA 3 interface based drive as I'm assuming you don't really mind the price.. Plus the fact that you know that you're SATA 3 port is being used, I mean, you did pay for the SATA 3 platform so I'd guess you'd wanna use it right? IMHO Try considering the Vertex 3

 

I kept everything on the alienware basic almost, and only bought it because it comes with the 6970M, coupled with almost 5 hour battery life. Additionally, it's the only gaming company that provides international warranty, and I'm going away for school, so that was very important to me. It took a long time of convincing myself because I hate its price, so I'm trying to save money on the Ram/SSD for it. If I don't think I'll actually see any differences for my activities with SATA III, then I can't justify it. Do those SATA III drives give any performance boost for my activities, or would I unlikely see the difference?

 

For your stated uses no, I don't think you'll notice much difference unless a few seconds matter to you.

 

Depends on "few." 10-15 seconds matters. If it's 1-3 seconds, then doesn't matter.

 

if that is the case then an intel x25-m G2 would probably do the trick..I mean any SATA 2 ssd will do..

 

Yeah, that's what others have told me as well, thanks! I've found it for 189 so far on canadacomputers. Hoping it may drop a little more before the laptop arrives.

 

I'm guessing it will, specially with the release of the G3 drives..What size are you getting btw?

 

The 120 GB.

 

I'm also planning to get the same size..Just have to save up a bit more.. On a side note, assuming you haven't checked it out already, check out the samsung 470..I hear it's a another good choice as it writes faster than even the sandforce based drives..Plus it has great reliability like the intels..Might wanna check it out..

 

It's not as reliable as the Intels, and I'll have no need for writing speeds at all almost. At least, that's what I've been told lol

 

We have the same needs, and I won't need the fast sequential write speeds either..Reliability can only be gaged with time so I guess we'll never know, but I don't think I've heard of anyone reporting problems with the Samsung 470 though.. But if you could get your hands on a Samsung and if the price is right, wouldn't you wanna have that extra write speed just in case? There are no Samsung drives here though, so I'm probably going with the intel G2..Oh and Samsung is the SSD Alienware uses when you pick the SSD upgrade..So I'd think it'd be reliable since Alienware or Dell wouldn't wanna get bad rep just because they chose an unreliable SSD supplier..Just some info for you..

 

Who says Samsung 470 is not as reliable as Intel?

 

"Few" means 1-3, yes.

 

You could go for a crucial C300, it costs the same as the SATA 2 drives but it's SATA 3 capable..I'm not sure how much the C400,510, or the newer SATA 3 drives cost and how they perform, but the C300 used to be at the top with synthetic benchmarks without having to spend a penny more than a regular SATA 2 drive.. Check it out..You won't spend more and at the same time you get SATA 3 performance..Not that there's a large performance gap but given the same price, why wouldn't you go for the SATA 3 drive right?

 

Everyone here always seems to say "Intel has the best reliability"

 

Will I see a difference between it and the G2 Intels? Enough of a difference to warrant the extra price and probably decreased reliability?

 

In the past, the C300 has been about the same price as a G2 (not sure about right now, haven't been looking at prices in the past 3 months or so). As for differences in performance and reliability... for your purposes you probably won't usually notice a difference in performance (although the C300 is almost certain to install most of your games faster, assuming you have a fast enough installation medium), nor will you notice a substantial difference in reliability. While people like to claim that Intels are the most reliable, apart from that one etailer claim, there's been no real corroboration. Most of the Intel claims of reliability come down to "It's Intel, they're a huge reliable company that puts their products through super-rigorous testing to catch everything!" (conveniently forgetting about the firmware incident, but I digress.) Essentially, most of the claims are trading off Intel's good name. This is not to say that the G2 is a bad or unreliable drive; it's an excellent drive, but the C300 is also a very reliable drive, apart from some stuttering/freezing issues some people seem to have with certain firmwares.

 

At this point though, the Intel X25M 120 GB is $190 ( | Canada Computers, while the C300 is $250, so there is a difference in the price. Is the C300 "60$ better" in your opinion?

 

Intel has a good reputation. So has Samsung. No one has hard numbers.

C300 on SATA III is definitely faster, check out the Crysis Warhead benchmark here: Crucial's RealSSD C300 solid-state drive - The Tech Report - Page 5

I don't know how much it's worth to you.

 

That test shows a huge difference, but other benchmarks seem to show nothing. I guess I'll go with the C300 since it's only $250 and has the advantage of being SATA III.

 

Make sure the benchmarks are real world, measured in real time. And that the C300 is connected to SATA III.

I'm pretty sure the C300 will almost always beat the Intel in game loading because of the big difference in read speeds.

 

Wow the G2s are really cheap there if they're only $190, in the past, they cost almost the same, well it's up to you if you think it's worth it, but I believe you will feel the difference with the c300 and the G2, although I can't really say how big of a difference there actually is, you have to research on real world benchmarks if you wanna know how big of a difference will there be..But SATA 3 c300 vs SATA 2 intel x25-m G2..Yeah I'm guessing there'll be a difference..