Cheap SSDs for legacy laptops

I have a couple of laptops that need some SSDs. The first one I got for free as a hand me down. It's a T500 thinkpad. It's actually a decent machine for how old it is. The resolution is almost 1080. It was a business laptop that was part of a domain. I removed the computer from the domain and have everything optimized but the standard SATA HDD is really slow. I think it has a SATA II controller in it though. I want to get a cheap SSD to install/clone W7 pro on to. I already moved the DVD drive and put in a caddy for a second HDD. I was thinking about getting an Intel X25-M for it.

The other laptop is a cheap older Gateway EC netbook. I want to sell it but I figure I should upgrade it with a 64gb or 80gb SSD before selling. It's going to be running Lubuntu. It runs really slow at the moment. It has a single core celeron. Without the SSD it's basically useless. I want to upgrade this machine as cheaply as possible but want to make it usable. The Gateway has SATA II as well.

What would be a good economical choice for these computers? I don't want to spend a lot on this project.

 

Think you could just get couple of used and reliability time proven SSD drives like Crucial M4 or whatever, I would suggest skipping Sandforce controllers and TLC memory based SSDs.

 

The current generation of SSDs bottom out at 120/128GB so finding an 80GB probably means either old stock or used. I wouldn't go there. Current generation SSDs have better reliability and they address the power loss problems that previous generations suffer. Just because it's SATA II does not mean you can't use SATA III drives. They'll work just fine, albeit at SATA II speeds.

Right now I am partial to Crucial's BX100 series in the budget category. Newegg has the 120GB model for $68. That's a lot of bang for the buck.

 

Thanks for the advice. My plan was to buy used from a reputable seller on Ebay. I found a few Intel drives that show the wear level in a screen shot with Intel's software. I was only going to buy from a seller that allows returns. Do you still feel that is a poor choice? I don't know a ton about SSDs. My biggest concern is cost followed by reliability. Both of these computers are pretty old. The Gateway is a 2009. The Lenovo might be older.

The 80gb Intel X25-M I found is only $29 shipped. It shows that it has little wear. The other one I found was a brand new Sandisk 128gb for $54 on Newegg.

 

I'm not a fan of eBay so I'm probably not the best judge. That said, thirty bucks for the Intel drive is tough to beat, but I would probably pay a little more for the Crucial instead of the SanDisk.

 

I hear you. I used to hate Ebay. However, I needed a few things on there that were older products. I learned a few tricks and learned from a few mistakes and now I really like it. If you do enough research, most of the time it works out. I only got screwed once but I got my money back so it wasn't a big deal.

Anyhow, I have five laptops now and I want to sell a few. I have a decent desktop too. I need to thin out the heard and I don't want to invest money into a machine that I'm going to sell.

I'm probably going to pull the trigger on that one unless I see a better deal or someone tells me why that drive is junk.

Is there any reason you dislike the Sandisk? The way I see it is I could spend $136 on two Crucials or $58 on two used Intels... If I was upgrading a newer computer I would be willing to purchase something nicer. I'm going to upgrade this Samsung Ativ book next with a 1tb SSD but I need to get some cash saved for that.

 

It's not that I hate Sandisk. It's that I like Crucial more than Sandisk.

 

I would spend less and get 2 intels.. Those are good SATA II SSD's... Don't waste any more money then you need to on theese machines...

 

Thanks. I just ordered one. I might get a few more. I'm going to test this one out and see how the quality is before ordering more from this seller.

 

Those were the best SATA II SSD's in 2009-2010... They had SLC memory and hopefully your impressed by it when you get it..

 

That's great. I feel like it will work great for what I need. I'm contemplating getting a few more. The guy just sold a lot of 5 for $130. It might be worth it to stock up on a few of these.

 

Yeah. The Intels at that price are impossible to beat.
I just re-read my previous comment. I did not mean that I would by the Crucial instead of the Intel, only that if the choice were Crucial vs. Sandisk then I would go with Crucial.

 

Not to rain on your parade here, but while these were once great examples, the last 7 years has made them effectively obsolete.

See:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2614/12

A VRaptor mechanical drive runs pretty competitively with these drives, even if overall they are slightly faster.

Sure, the value proposition is high with the cost of these examples. But performance? No.

Not compared to modern SSD's even when they're crippled by SATA2 connections.

 

I'm not looking for performance per se. I'm looking for a cheap alternative to a modern drive. These computers are already borderline obsolete. The Lenovo isn't that bad but the Gateway is bad. I'm confident I can sell the Gateway though. It's essentially new old stock. I had two. One was dual-core and I used until it died. The other my girlfriend bought and put in a cabinet for 7 years and never used. I'm hoping the performance will be enough for me to sell it and have it be a computer for an unsavvy person to surf the web. That CPU is terrible though so I will find out in a few days.

I don't see the point in putting a Sata III drive in a computer with a SATA II interface.... Unless I'm missing something.

I'm hoping the performance will at least be half of what I'm getting from a SATA III.

 

Alpha7, let's be clear that 5 X25-M 80GB SSD's for $130 is hard to impossible to beat.

Secondly, I want to point out that these are not SLC drives, they are the first affordable MLC drives Intel made.

Third, with regards to performance...

As I mentioned, these drives compare in many ways to the circa 2008 300GB VelociRaptor and in real world situations does not better it. The only dig against those VRaptors are that almost no notebook can use them (they need a lot of power and they need the 'IcePack' which makes them effectively 3.5" drives, physically).

and, just like Anand stated back then for the X25-M...

Today's SATA3 SSD's offer even SATA2 limited platforms many performance boosts over those early examples of what an SSD should do.

Just stop and think about this: if I'm comparing an SSD to a HDD (granted, a 10K RPM drive...) it is not about performance, it is simply bragging rights (at that time).

Today, with a very usable increase in capacity (to 128GB) for a few dollars more, you get a stable, proven brand new SATA3 SSD which blows the X25-M out of the water.

See:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820171646


Don't worry about brand name at these price points (if you were buying for a newer platform and sustained performance was critical, the SanDisk Extreme Pro 480GB or higher model would be my first choice and/or recommendation), anything current will leave the pioneering Intel MLC SSD in the dust.

For an 80GB drive to be considered in 2015, it better be something I can pick up at a convenience store for $19.99.

Otherwise, especially for value, capacity and even for almost comparable performance (yeah), I would be looking at a 320GB WD Black for those older notebooks.

See:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1N82N95540


You'll have one soon to play with and you can temper your direct experience with what you see, but test before you order another batch of these too small, too old and for me, too expensive for the performance offered SSD's (and that, from an Intel supporter).

Good luck.

 

You made some good points. The computer that I'm keeping I would consider buying a better drive for but I'm still not looking to invest much money into it. I'm going to look into the WD black. The one I'm selling, I really just wanted cheap.

How would a modern 320Gb WD black 7200 RPM drive compare to the Intel in terms of speed? How about heat? The Lenovo is running pretty hot. It has a dedicated GPU in it. I think I need to open this one up and put some new thermal paste on the CPU. I think that in general these older computers just ran a lot hotter though.

Aside from getting an extra 40Gb, what benefit does a modern SATA III drive have over an older SATA II on a machine with a SATA II interface? Is it just the reliability factor? Random read speeds? Would it actually be faster?

Thanks

 

I wouldn't put a 7200RPM disk in an old computer. The differences between 7200RPM and 5400RPM for things like mail and web browsing and watching videos are close enough to nil as to be unnoticeable unless you're specifically looking for them.

The current crop of SSDs have more reliable flash chips. They also have better or better-tuned controllers for better reliability and performance although you won't see any of that performance on a SATA II port.

 

Thanks for that. My parts should be here soon so I will be able to test out the Intel in person. I will report back.

 

For the cheap one you're selling, put in the X25-M 80GB SSD you bought and (you're) done.

For the one you want to keep, using an 80GB SSD is not the wisest move no matter the price. Most of my current setups have 960GB or 1TB drives installed with C:\Drive being 150GB of that. 80GB capacities were usable (for me) over a decade ago. Using a drive like that today will involve making almost daily tradeoffs of what programs you want installed, what Windows updates you can do and/or what data you can have with you. (I am also seriously thinking of increasing the C:\Drive partition to 200GB or more for my near future Win10 builds).

In other words, a waste of effort and time with much, much larger capacities available for so cheap today.

(Also, while ratinox may be correct about the very limited usage scenarios he provided, buying anything below a 7200RPM HDD today is also a form of insanity. The faster speed (up to 60% faster with real world use in my experience) is easily used by normal O/S functions like program installs, O/S updates, virus checking and multitasking. In other words IMMENSELY useful if a HDD is what you will decide to go with).

Also consider that short-stroking a larger capacity 7200RPM HDD will give a big (relative) boost in performance too. With a 320GB HDD, I would ss it to about 30% for maximum performance vs. capacity available (i.e. ~90GB of actual/usable storage vs. ~52GB the SSD will offer with my recommended 30% OP'ing applied).

Now, for current SATA3 SSD's vs. circa 2008 SATA2 SSD's? You really think there is no performance increases in all that time?

The differences are easily noticeable by me. Circa 2011 and previous SSD's performed much like my fully optimized HDD setups at the time. Putting in a SATA3 SSD in my Arrandale (2010) based U30Jc made a noticeable increase in usability (I'm actually still using it occasionally as my 'digital' notebook). But look at this upgrade to an SSD:

See:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3741/asus-u30jc-ssd/5

The graphs show that compromising capacity that much is not worth the small overall gain of foregoing an HDD with much higher capacity.

Make no mistake, the SSD based platform will feel and be faster (slightly)... but it is faster in 'snappiness' not in raw performance (the only thing that affects raw platform performance is changing one or both of the CPU+RAM=Work done equation variables).


The biggest drawback to those old X25-M's were the low write speeds. And yeah; they matter a lot.

See:
https://communities.intel.com/message/84665

See:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8520/sandisk-ultra-ii-240gb-ssd-review

See:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2808/4


Buying 7 year old SSD tech when current gen tech is similar to slightly more cost is like buying an 1975 Porsche 911 and complaining why your neighbor's 2015 Honda can beat the snot out of it.

 

Back and forth.

Regarding the benefits of a 7200 RPM drive: You install a given program how many times? Typically once. You install system updates how often? Typically once a week because that's Microsoft's release schedule. Virus scanning? Typically a background task with a negligible performance loss if you're not using garbage software. Bang for your buck, a 5400 RPM drive in an older notebook is fine.

Regarding seven years of performance improvements: SATA II port. 3Gb/s. You ain't going any faster than that no matter how many years of performance improvements you put into the drive tech.

Edit:

Sequential read and write:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-upgrade-sata-3gbps,3469-4.html
Random read and write:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-upgrade-sata-3gbps,3469-6.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-upgrade-sata-3gbps,3469-7.html

 

You're missing the point here. You're comparing the identical SATA3 capable drive between SATA2 and SATA3 connections. That is not what is being discussed here.

Bang for your buck, a 5400RPM drive is as ancient as ancient can get in 2015. Saving $1.51 to get one is just nonsensical.

I did forget to mention something in my posts above; for both 5400RPM vs. 7200RPM HDD's and X25-M 80GB SSD vs. almost any current SSD:

Multitasking with the weaker/older versions is a night and day difference. And since just having a modern O/S running is using it in a multitasking mode, considering the weaker/older options is not worth it no matter what savings is made with the lessor options.

See:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2614/15

The take away from the above is that in those specific tests, the VRaptor was actually faster than the X25-M (combined times).


Why do I point this specific test out? Because that is how I remember the system 'feeling' when I was testing these early SSD's for my workstations. And I opted for my RAID0 arrays of VRaptors instead...


ratinox, the bottom line is that storage components from such vastly different generations are still inferior when compared to same gen components but different designs (mechanical vs. digital) today.

 

The Intel X25-M is garbage nowadays. Any modern budget SSD blows it away, even on SATA II, and comes with an actual warranty.

 

No, sir, you are. OP asked about cheap SATA II SSDs. $29 for X25-M fits that to a T.

 

No cheap SSD's period. I already said that the price is almost untouchable. But the performance plummets to effectively at or below HDD levels on almost any modern O/S I would be willing to run.

And please, no 'sir'. Thank you.

 

Well at this point I am very interested to get this drive and test it out. I will let you know how it works out.

Do you guys test your drives with a piece of software? Is CrysalDiskMark a reliable method for testing speed?

I might have another drive. I could test them both side by side.

 

Benchmark software 'scores' are not relevant to me and my workflows. But sure, go ahead and use something to see that your system is in the ballpark.

What I use to test different components is my actual workflow with everything the same except for changing out the old/new component I'm testing and using that platform for a week or so.

 

This is incorrect.

X-25M = mainstream, MLC

X-25E = enterprise, SLC.

They were night and day back then, and still are now. In *all* respects.

X-25E - which I still own a several examples of - is the closest thing to indestructible SSD that I've encountered. Obviously, YMMV.

 

Ok thanks for letting me.. Learnt something new today

 

So I got the drive today. I installed it in the slow Gateway. I installed Ubuntu on it but than realized that I wasn't thinking and probably should have put something lighter on a computer with such limited processing power. It was very slow running Ubuntu with noticeable lag in every respect. I than installed a new desktop environment (LXDE). It now runs much faster. It isn't what I would call fast but it's usable for basic computing. On the other Gateway I had, I had a Samsung EVO 840. The computer was the exact same but had a dual core celeron. It booted much faster than the one I'm using now.

The computer does seem a bit faster but it is not like a SATA III. I'm going to try it out in the other computer with more CPU power to get a feel for it.

 

Please do note, only the X25-E has SLC flash. The X25-M and X25-V both have MLC.

EDIT
Dang it, George beat me to it. I also have a couple X25-E drives and they are the most reliable drives I have ever owned. Really is a shame they didn't come in larger capacities. I wouldn't care for a super fast SSD as much as I would a hyper durable SLC drive with good storage. I could only dream of a 512GB X25-E haha.

Just whatever you do, avoid anything with a sandforce controller. I made the mistake of purchasing a 60GB corsair LS Force SSD for my thinkpad T60P, and the performance would often drop to below a 7200RPM HDD and never remotely approached the read/write speeds claimed. I've had the drive disappear on occasion too. The X25-E is a better drive, especially in reliability and consistency. Swapped the corsair out for a X25-E and it the real world usage was immediately improved.

 

I think you ought to read the articles you quoted lol. Unless you have a queue depth of 32 or do huge SSD to SSD file transfers sata 2 does benefit a modern ssd and the gap in real world performance between a modern ssd on sata 2 and 3 is barely noticeable.

Tis the reason why I will upgrade to next gen ssd on my old sata 2 laptop.