Best price:performance 128GB SSD?

or if I can get slightly larger for a similar price/performance I'll take it.

Looking for speed really. Battery life isn't an issue, I assume it'll basically always be better than a HDD Anyway so it can only be better.

 

Samsung 470, Intel G2 120GB or Corsair Force 120.

Each has it's own strengths.

 

Cool. The Corsair seems to give the best price/performance by far (Best price AND best performance in sequential)

I know that 4k random is more important, but what to 5.4k rpm drives tend to get in sequential compared to a drive like this? Wondering what to expect. I think I'd be happy even moving to a Momentus XT so this should be a big change.

 

A 5400rpm can push out 60MBps - 100MBps sequential read times, with the more modern, high-capacity 5400rpm drives getting closer to the 100MBps range (because of high areal density).

As for random 4K speeds - you are correct that 95% of the activity on your computer is random reads (and not sequential). And random reads are dominated by seek times. So while an SSD is "only" 2x - 2.5x faster than a 5400rpm drive in sequential reads (100Mbps vs 250Mbps for SSD), they are 100x - 150x faster in random read speeds (0.4Mbps vs. 50MBps - 75MBps).

 

Intel G3 is looking good too: Intel's 320 Series solid-state drive - The Tech Report - Page 1

Data on 5400rpm drives: Charts, benchmarks 2009 2.5? Mobile Hard Drive Charts, h2benchw 3.12: Avg Read Throughput

 

Ah, interesting. I didn't know that seek times were so important. I'm not using a very high quality 5.4krpm drive from what I know. Just a standard one that came with the computer.

Should be a big difference.

Nice. Good links, thanks.

 

What about the Kingston V and V+ 128GB that's often $140-180 after rebate?
It's the cheapest, but will it feel slower when you're just using the computer, not running benchmarks?

Also, I found some 80GB G2 Intel with what seems to be an OEM part number on it (SSDSA2M080G2GC) for about $125. Good move, or wait until retail boxed G2 or G3 from mainstream suppliers with known warranty coverage drops under $150?

 

The V+ is a fast drive with low power consumption, see techreport.com.

 

I thought the V+ (SNVP325-S2/128GB) were virtually as slow as the V (SNV425-S2/128GB). More slow in latency than in transfer rate IIRC, but I have no idea what it feels like to actually use them, or any other SSD.

I can get the SNV425 for $1 a GB right now, or $1.4 for the SNVP325.

Why is it that the 425 is known for stuttering in games? I see here that the avg write latency is 0.4 ms, and the maximum write latency is 1400 ms. Any way to fix this?
http://www.storagereview.com/kingston_ssdnow_v_review_snv425s2

Isn't the quick Kingston the V100, or the 1.8" V180?

 

Ugh, looking at my current windows isntallation it's 156GB. No idea how I'm gonna trim it down...

 

Don't be fooled by synthetic numbers. I used the V+ for a while, it feels very fast. It also gave me the best battery life I ever had. For normal notebook usage it's a great drive imo.

Check the real world benchmarks on Techreport.com
A look at new SSDs from Corsair, Kingston, Plextor, and WD - The Tech Report - Page 1

 

Thanks Phil. So, if I can get a Kingston V+ 128GB for $220-$10 discount -$8 Fatwallet cashback - $50 rebate = $152, do you think that would be a better deal than a G2 Intel 80GB OEM, possibly without warranty, for $125? I'm thinking I should avoid the Kingston V for $117, if only because it uses more power at idle than a 7200 rpm Samsung.

Usage would be mostly World of Warcraft. I'd try to move all of Warcraft's short term writes to ramdrive or platter drive before giving it to the end user. Looking for a good improvement in speed without spending much money, but this notebook should be faster than the desktop it's replacing even without the SSD.

Another thought: Would it work almost as well to forget the SSD, and just move all the temp files to ramdrive while running windows and the game off the existing 7200rpm SATA III drive?

 

Buying an SSD without warranty would not be a serious option for me.

Whichever you take, the difference will be very hard (impossible) to notice.

 

Is this possibly applicable here?:

See:
Kingston Releases New V100 Firmware to Address Data Loss Bug - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

 

That bugfix applies to Kingston V series SSDs. The Kingston V+ series drives is a different model. And the V+ model is what has been discussed in a lot of the posts here.

 

Oops! Sorry.

 

Sorry for intruding but why get the kingston when there are more proven ssds out there that are known to perform well or known to be really reliable?..I mean why not just go for intel or sandforce? Just asking, I don't mean to offend anyone or anything..

 

Isn't intel usually more expensive?

Looks like I can't get one anyway =\ 128gb is just too small and 256 is just way too expensive.

 

Because Kingston V series and V+ series are less expensive, with real-world performance that is pretty close to Intel and Sandforce SF-1200 drives. The lowest price I've seen on a Kingston V series drive is $135 for 120GB. The lowest price I've seen on an Intel X25-M 120GB or Sandforce SF-1200 based drive is around $170 for 120GB.

The target buyer for a Kingston drive is someone who wants an SSD that has "good enough" performance, and lets them save some money by buying one.

 

I read somewhere that the intel x25-m G2 160gb price went down to about $260 I think? i forgot where..but it's somewhere in these forums..lol

Well sandforce drives are pretty cheap..But generally 256GB drives are expensive..I could never get one lol..I can only get the 120gb models.. I think you can make it fit..What exactly do you plan on putting in your ssd if I may ask?

 

It is a $340 --> $260 sale / rebate from Buy.com that will expire. You most liekly saw it on "Tech Deals and Bargains" forum. Intel did not lower their price down to $260 permanently.

 

Ahh now I see..Sorry my bad..

 

In many of the real world benchmarks on Techreport the Kingston V+ (SNV325/2 i believe) beats the Intel X25m while it uses significantly less power.

So if the price is right, it's definitely worth considering.

 

Speaking of power consumption, do the sandforce drives have better power consumption than the intel? Or does it depend on what sandforce drive? I believe I've seen a benchmark on this, but it was very limited..and I'm curious about the power consumption of the G.skill Phoenix Pro..Might be another drive to consider..

 

The G.Skill Phoenix Pro is just another Sandforce SF-1200 drive. It is practically identical to every other Sandforce SF-1200 drive.

You can look at any Sandforce SF-1200 drive, and get a pretty good idea of how every other Sandforce SF-1200 drive will perform when it comes to performance, battery consumption, etc.

 

I agree..performance wise..but with the battery life I'm not so sure cause I recall a benchmark showing the different sandforce drives having different battery consumptions..As I recall the Corsair Force was the least power hungry and the OCZ Vertex 2 was the most power hungry..But again power consumption would probably be minutes of difference anyway so I don't think anyone would really notice..