Help choosing new SSD for WIndows 7 drive

Hey folks, just getting back into the hardcore performance scene here on computer(laptop) components.

Ive been looking at the new 830. Curious first off if I should be doing a 64gig or 128gig HD for Windows 7(Using a secondary storage drive for itunes, pictures, videos, files etc)Home 64. But it seems like the read/write specs for the SSD's improves as the capacity increases? Also, I was told by a friend to get a SSD(Sata 3 only with 6gig/s throughput)with a Sanforce controller? Does the Samsung 830 use one of those like the Crucial M4 and OCZ Vertex 3?

Also, it seems like the performance specs on some of these SSD's improves with larger capacity models?

Also for real world performance how does the 830 stack up against the other SSD's mentioned? Ive read a review or 2 where the performance is better, yet Ive seen threads stating the M4, Vertex 3 etc are a lil better? Or am I just splitting hairs here and should I just get one of the SSD's mentioned thats just priced the best?

As stated I'll be putting primarily Windows 7 on the SSD and probably a half dozen games(SC2, Crysis, Crysis 2, SWTOR,WOW,Skyrim) on it, with everything else going to the secondary storage drive.

Last option here is I could do a pair of smaller SSD's in RAID 0(I would start of with say one 64gig SSD, and then add another down the road when funds permit) and use a secondary storage as my laptop has 3 HDD slots(Clevo P180HM). Or is RAID 0 a waste of time, and just get one single larger SSD?

 

Samsung 830 uses it's own controller, you won't notice any difference between those drives for normal usage, 128GB is my choice of size and the brand I prefer is Samsung 830.

 

Thanks Ellalan! You actually helped me make up my mind as to what size SSD although I am still also considering the M4 and gulp, Intel 510? Have listed the M4 128Gb in my sig although I haven't actually bought it yet... waiting on the HP second drive kit/cable from HP... so I still have some time.

 

THanks for the reply. Yeah, Ive looked over some benchmarks, I know what looks better on paper won't always translate to any real world noticeable differences.

Also figured that 128gig is the right size. Just curious if doing a pair of 64gig SSD's in RAID would be more beneficial for performance over a single 128gig SSD since the pricing is roughly the same either way. Thoughts?

 

RAID 0 can be faster, but MUCH more problematic. TRIM, what if one drive dies accidentally, you lose all your data on it, and so on. Samsung 830 has already 500 MB-ish read and 300 MB-ish and write speed, that's WAY more than we could actually use as an average user.

I prefer Samsung 830, btw.

 

I am aware that in Raid 0 that if one drive fails or is corropted then you lose all the data(thats why Im using a 2ndary drive for important files,photoes etc). Im just curious if you lose any of the SSD's "features" etc. if you RAID 2 together. I though I read somewhere where some important feature or features are lost(maybe GC?)?

 

You do not loose GC since that is on the drive's firmware. However, you loose TRIM which a lot of drives need in order to perform GC more efficiently/adequately.

 

OK, I gotcha, so TRIM basically improves GC in a nutshell?

So, I have the choice down to either a Patriot Wildfire 120gig which I can get locally for about $220, or a 128gb Samsung 830. I was originally looking at a Crucial M4 too, but keep seeing threads about some 5200 hour bug issue? Also interested in the OCZ Vertex 3 possibly too. Not worried about absolute best performane, as long as I know its at least in the top groupings of SSD for performance. I don t worry about benchmarks, just want to make sure real world performance is good.

 

For real world performance and a solid drive that wont cause you problems down the line get either Intel 510, Crucial M4 (a fix is on its way for the 5200 hours bug) or samsung 830, in that order.

Avoid any Sandforce based drives, epecially OCZ

 

Wait a minute....????? AVOID any Sandforce based drives? Isnt the M4 a Sandforce drive? I thought Sandforce was supposed to be a recommended controller? Now Im confused........ Plus now Im reading about the Samsung having an issue with having issues slowing down and poor large file read/write capablility or something along those lines? LOL! Was hoping to order one of these up today too.......just want top notch performance and good bug free reliability.

 

I think M4 has Marvell controller. Yes, I believe those performance degradation in Samsung may happen after I use it for a good 2 years, hopefully and by that time I may get another SSD, so I wouldn't worry about that.

 

M4 has a marvel controller, the 5200h fix is supposedly coming, but i'd wait until next week until we know more. The 64GB in my desktop is already at over 3500 hours

 

A bit off topic, but I think it will be interesting to see how the marketplace reacts to the Intel 520, which is also rumored to contain a SF controller.

There may be a [FW] fix for some of these SF based drives, and *if* so, those OCZ/SF drive crashes may be a thing of the past, but I think the damage may already be done.

 

TRIM with RAID0 will be available with next edition of RST 11.5 in Q2 this year.
My guess around the release of Windows 8 since it is mentioned in RST 11.5 release info

 

Well, I found a deal for a Samsung 830 128gb SSD for $185 including overnight shipping. So I pulled the trigger and will have it by tommarow. That was near the max. I could spend, gotta love finding online coupon codes

 

Wanna Share the coupon and deal with the rest of us shoppers?

 

I stand corrected

 

Don't worry about the differences in speed between SSDs. Does it really matter to you if Windows takes an extra 5 seconds to load, or of Word takes 5 seconds instead of 4? Ignoring benchmarks, this is literally the kind of difference you're looking at in terms of real-world performance between a "slow" SATA2 drive and a "fast" SATA3 drive.

I would focus on low price and reliability. I don't own a single SATA3 SSD, I've paid around $1/gb for all my drives combined, and I can't say I've ever found myself wishing things were faster.

Yes, there is. You have two points of failure where before there was one, and each point of failure kills the whole array.

 

Huge difference if you have 1 drive for OS and second for data, and back each up regularly vs Raid0. Stay away from SF controllers. I have a 510 in my lappy with a Scorp Black. One (SSD) holds my OS and certain programs, the other (HDD) is my data drive, and then I back up everything, and have an image of the OS to boot. And then I have another backup.

If I were to ever get a bad virus I can fix it. If I were to have a drive fail, I can fix it. No matter what happens I can recover. I backup my image on my hdd, my external and if something happens I also have my image to replace my OS to its pristine state. I have my data on 3 backups. SSD and HDD in concert are win. Win. Win.

And to answer the OP. the larger size SSD, the better the performance.

 

obious thinking error there.

both drives have the same chance of dying. but that means, the raid will die when the drive that dies younger will die.

so if the chance is 50% that a drive dies within a year, then the chance of both still alive after one year is only 25% (or something, i'm so bad at that).

but the important part is: raid0 increases chance of early death with each drive that it has in there. it's against the survival of the fittest scheme. the least fit one will kill all others.

 

Glad I didn't see the original. I would have taken you to task on that one.

I almost feel like creating a "RAID-0 Failure Rate - The Mathematics Explained" thread and keep pointing to it every time someone posts that failure rate is the same as a single drive.