SSD Thread (Benchmarks, Brands, News, and Advice)

An SSD is good. But a clean install can/will do wonders too. And Win8.1x64Pro or above is well worth the money too, imo. Several minutes to open Word 2010? Yeah, time for a re-install.

I would be tempted to buy (student?) version of Windows 7 Pro x64 today and get the free upgrade to Win10x64Pro. The price for Win10 may be higher on it's own...

With less than 200GB of actual capacity used, a ~500GB SSD will be a good fit.

But, curious which notebook she has? Specifically, is it an Arrandale or earlier platform?

The storage subsystem is the last thing I would upgrade on an older notebook. The order is O/S (currently Win8.1x64Pro), RAM (8GB is NOT enough, 16GB recommended, where possible) and then the O/S drive (with 30% OP'ing taken into consideration and my currently recommended 200GB/250GB C:\Drive Partition size).

The problem with the Arrandale platform is the horrible chipset (HM55?) which almost negates any performance increase an SSD 'should' bring to a platform. Yeah; it is still much faster than a HDD. But, it is also just as slow when it needs to do real work too... (my Asus U30Jc is an example - with 8GB RAM, a half a TB SSD and Win8.1x64Pro it is just enough to surf the web with, imo ).

 

She's got a Sandy Bridge - and she barely does anything that taxes any component at all. All she wants is for her computer to do stuff faster - which it currently does not. Furthermore, her 8 GB should be enough. I'm in greater need for an upgrade - X-Plane 10 with UHD scenery easily exceeds 6GB of RAM usage.

Isn't Win10 already going to be free? She's already got Win7 Home Premium x64 - so she'd technically get the free upgrade, right?

 

My 850 PRO is faster than advertised. That's always good.

 

Not sure how useful an upgrade from Win7 HPx64 will be (again; I recommend Pro). But if she can upgrade her current O/S for very little money (vs. buying Win8.1 or Win10 outright...), it will still be a win for her.

 

hi guys, I want to buy an M.2 SSD for my laptop. I'm looking at the Samsung 850 EVO 500GB right now but I don't know if it's the best choice. I'm not sure how much space I'll need tho. It'd be for OS, Photoshop, Sony Vegas, and games (DotA 2, LoL, and other game such as Skyrim, Dark Soul... but I'm not really sure since I've never played those games before and don't know how much space they will need). Would the 256GB be sufficient? This is the first time I buy a SSD so.

 

I would not recommend any M.2 SSD's right now. Random R/W performance and heat/throttling issues and general compatibility issues too (vs. 2.5" SATA3 SSD's). What notebook do you want to put this in?

With the type of workflows you indicate and the amount of software you want installed, 500GB is not sufficient. Especially if you OP (over provision) the SSD by at least 25% (I recommend 30%) for the highest sustained speed over time.

That 500GB SSD is effectively an 325GB (at 30% OP'ing) drive. Not enough for an O/S, Photo/Video editing software and their associated Scratch Disk requirements.

I'd recommend an 960GB SanDisk Extreme Pro 2.5" SSD instead. Not only will a 2.5" form factor be more compatible, it will give effectively more performance, better efficiency and less heat than the crippled M.2 drives can.

 

Question - is over-provisioning absolutely necessary? It seems like a superfluous step that ends up giving me considerably less space (for my soon-to-be 500 GB drive, about 150 GB of space, which is not insignificant) all for a faster drive... And recent drives don't, or at least, shouldn't exactly slow down as much as they fill up. I haven't over-provisioned my own SSDs in my Clevo, and I'm not looking to break any benchmarks here, so if it boots about ten to fifteen times faster than a HDD and opens applications and programs similarly quickly, then I'm fine.

 

Is OP'ing necessary? Depends on what you are asking of your storage subsystem.

Just like with HDD's and short stroking offering users much better minimum storage subsystem performance, OP'ing an SSD brings many benefits too, including lower WA (write amplification), higher endurance (just like commercial SSD's offer) and performance that more closely matches the spec's of an SSD when steady state performance is reached (which I see in SSD's before they are fully setup with an O/S and Programs + Data... in as little as a few hours of 'new').

I haven't seen an SSD boot 10 to 15 times faster than a properly setup/identical HDD based system (they would need to boot in 3 seconds or less) and opening programs quickly is also a wash as the time saved is in the seconds, at most. What an SSD offers me (with 30% or more OP'ing) is finally a storage subsystem that is faster overall than an optimal and multiple VRaptor based setup.

Benchmarks I could care less about. What I want and need is a consistently faster storage subsystem than what I had. Without OP'ing I don't get it. With OP'ing (30% or more... anything less than 30% has proven 'sluggish' to me) I do.

I don't OP to get more performance from an SSD. I OP to get the performance an SSD promises (from way back in 2009). With PCIe 3.0 x4 SSD's and the new platforms I expect in 2016, I may change my mind on this issue. But each and every SSD I have used has benefitted greatly by OP'ing it.

OP'ing doesn't offer more performance than what the SSD is capable of. The distinction is that it offers as much performance as it can when the user requests it (and not randomly taking care of background tasks like GC, for example in the middle of the users workload).

It sounds like you do not always need the top performance an SSD can offer. That's fine. But thinking that OP'ing is a waste of capacity is wrong. Trading capacity for sustained over time (almost no matter how you use the SSD) performance is what makes the last few years of owning SSD's worth it. Otherwise, they would just be as effective as racing stripes on a Chevette in the area of performance computing that I live and breathe in.

 

I plan to put it in the Sager Np8651/Clevo P650SE. It can only fit 2 7mm SSD/HDD or 1 9.5mm HDD and 2 M.2 slots. But I need the 1TB 9.5mm HDD for storage so I can't use 2.5" SSD (not to mention 1 SSD and 1 7mm HDD mean stacking them up and I heard that configuration has some heat issue too).

I've never had an SSD before so I don't really know how to deal with them. If 500GB isn't enough I can install Photoshop and Sony Vegas on the HDD since I don't use them that often or just some game, I'm used to waiting for game to load. Right now, I'm pretty much experimenting. Plus, I don't have enough money for a 960GB SSD. 500GB is barely enough but I think I might go down to 250GB.

 

Gotcha.

See:
http://www.amazon.com/Blue-1TB-Laptop-Hard-Drive/dp/B00DCM91WQ

See:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...0446076&PID=6146996&SID=ibcyckr2gq0035wt00053


I would either keep saving until you can do M.2 'right' (capacity-wise), consider just running a HDD based system or think about the above two products.

Neither is the top in their class, but they are both 1TB 2.5" 7mm drives that will give you a user experience worth their cost and the 2.5" form factor is the ideal for any of today's SSD's.

See:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mushkin-reactor-512gb-ssd,4163.html

See how the SSD drive compares against others. Great read speeds. Low(est) price. Great battery life.


Your call.

 

@tilleroftheearth I thought of the 7mm 1TB HDD at first too because I found some good 2.5" SSD deal but it isn't available anymore and I just don't know how good it's, compares to other 9.5mm HDD (my current notebook is using 7mm HDD right now and it's gonna die after ~2.5 years). The HDD of the Sager/Clevo I'm plan to buy is actually stock HDD (HGST Travelstar 7200RPM) and if I choose to not have HDD, I may get ~$40 off. Actually now you link me to a cheaper SSD, price would be not too different between 7mm HDD + SSD combo and stock HDD + M.2 SSD combo.

So right now, 2.5" SSD is much better than M.2 SSD? And if I stack the HDD and SSD on top each other, would that cause any problem?

 

@tilleroftheearth once again, thanks for the detailed reply. I don't disagree that OPing is useful. Yet, this is for my sister, and if I tell her, 'hey, I got you a brand new drive that's much faster, 500 GB, but you'll only get to use 70% of that so that you consistently see the fastest speeds that the drive can reach, all the time', she's going to reply: 'no, thanks, I'd rather have the space.'.

It's all about opportunity cost and whether one values speed and consistency or storage capacity. She's going to say, 'you already got me a faster drive, it already feels faster. I'm not going to feel your 30% magic to make it run at its fastest all the time.' As I mentioned a while ago, she doesn't use her laptop for performance computing, not even close. Hence she doesn't need the SSD to run up to 100% performance all the time.

Based on your reply, though, on the other hand, I will probably OP my SSDs, though not to 30% - that's too much space in already-tiny 128 GB drives. Probably around 15%, give or take. I already make it a point to fill my SSD to not more than 75% capacity, since performance clearly degrades when an SSD is approaching full storage use.

 

There are lots of things in life where we have limitations... red line on a car for example or the max temp of something.
It takes literally just a minute to expand or shrink a partition into or from adjacent unallocated space.

I think the point everyone always misses on this is... once the drive is filled to the brim then what are you going to do?

It's not like the unallocated space is stolen, it is still there and usable if needed. But once maxed you are going to be spending a lot more time trying to figure out what files to move off or delete if there is no room to save your next project.

 

Give us some more info of how you use your system and what you expect of an SSD and we'll be able to give a better answer.

Generally though, I would recommend the biggest (greater than 480GB...) SanDisk Extreme Pro you can afford with 30% OP'ing.

 

With the Mushkin Reactor SSD, the longer battery run times (vs. other SSD's) indicates to me a very efficient package. I don't think it will be a problem stacking these drives (but please note that I do not personally know the system you have).

When using the system flat out for extended periods (more than 1/2 an hour...), I always recommend using it on a cooling pad. If necessary, a few precision holes drilled in the cover of the HDD bay (along with a fan blowing underneath) would probably be all the help it needs to keep those cool running drives comfortable.

 

Just want to add that intelligent partitioning has saved my bacon (and many of my client's too) many times.

The last install I did I partitioned C:\Drive to 150GB, Z:\Drive to 475GB (this is a 960GB nominal capacity SSD) and after the clean O/S install and program setup, I shrunk the C:\Drive to 50GB on that particular install and then expanded the Z:\Drive (DATA Drive) to 575GB's.

The net result is that the drive in total still has 30% effective OP'ing. But with the capability to expand the C:\Drive up to 150GB I can install any software suite I want in the future without needing to re-partition and re-install the O/S once again. Also leaves room for O/S updates and upgrades too.

If/when I need more room for the C:\Drive, I can simply expand that partition into the currently 'unallocated' portion of it and similarly shrink the Z:\Drive by the same amount to keep the 30% OP'ing constant.

If I actually need the Z:\Drive (DATA Drive) partition that big (or bigger), no problems - I can expand both C:\ and Z:\ partitions as I see fit. But I know at that point that storage subsystem performance will take a hit (tradeoffs...).

With the above partitioning and OP'ing process, I get full use of my SSD's along with maximum sustained performance over time. And... the DATA is always there on the Z:\ partition even if I need to blow away the old O/S partition for any reason.

I know I can use utilities that can expand a fixed size partition by moving partitions over. But those take a LONG time to finish and I have seen them fail in the middle of the operation. Bad idea.

By setting a larger than anticipated (for the lifecycle of the system) C:\Drive partition and creating a second partition for the Data (Z:\Drive for me) and then shrinking (after Windows is installed) the partition to allow for ~25GB to ~50GB free space (depending on what it will be used for) I now have full and safe control of this part of my storage subsystem.

I have no doubt Windows will soon allow moving partitions too with a built in routine. But I will still not use it (again; because the huge amount of time it would take for it to complete). But it will come in handy when working on clients systems that need that final tweak to optimize their drives fully.

 

256 is the bare minimum size I'd recommend for anything nowadays. 500 is strongly recommended though.

 

Too expensive. I will probably only purchase the larger SSDs once average prices fall to below $0.20 per GB, and that's in my currency. That would probably be about US$0.15.

Anyway, I have a 1 TB HDD inside as well. My SSDs are solely OS disks as well as for crucial programs (Office, Ps, Blender, etc.). Every single one of my games and even my library folders (like my desktop, music, movies, documents) are installed to my HDD.

 

Budgets, I understand. 'Too expensive' is relative though.

What is expensive for me is to buy something and then receive half or less of the performance I paid for. That is what you get with a 'too small' SSD since 2009 that I've been tracking them.

Too expensive by needing more time to use on a day to day basis (multiplied and cumulative over the next few years). Too expensive by needing more time to setup initially. Too expensive by needing to constantly juggle what is installed where and why. Too expensive by needing to do a re-install eventually to a bigger capacity drive.

A goal of $0.15/GB is not based on anything but wishful thinking - even if it mirrors your budget realities.

I strongly suggest to simply save more/longer and do it right the first time. Yeah, that is how bad a too small SSD is.

I have used hybrid setups myself (SSD + HDD) and cannot recommend them today for any performance mobile setup. HDD too delicate (vs. SSD's) when bumps or constant movement is needed of the system. Having Windows access the system folders on a HDD not only kills battery run times needlessly - it also slows down and minimizes the benefits that an SSD offers (snappiness...). I have also seen systems become unusable when the HDD dies (and Windows can't even boot at this point - even if it was on the SSD).

The benefits a larger capacity SSD offers is hugely offset by the small additional one time cost - and is in no way related to an arbitrary $/GB figure.

Not that I wouldn't welcome a $1.2K 8TB SSD, but in the foreseeable future, I can't see ever seeing an SSD priced that low (i.e. $0.15USD per GB).

 

Once again, a great, detailed reply. But with all due respect, I'm afraid I have to disagree with parts of your post...

I am extremely judicious about storage capacity. Over the course of owning my machine for a year, I can safely say I haven't felt the need for a larger SSD. As for my Windows drive, I still have some 40% of the space left, and I have set up Windows to automatically clean up after itself. If it does need intervention, it is minimal - merely agreeing to provide administrative rights to delete all those iterations of old Nvidia drivers. I perform a Disk Cleanup every month or so, which does not interfere with whatever I'm currently doing, and I regularly recover several gigabytes of space. It runs in the background while I continue surfing the Net, typing a document, or rendering something.

And secondly, I think the cumulative effect of an SSD having longer access times compared to an HDD is hardly worth the extra initial money spent. Let me perform a simple, but probably not the most rigorous or robust calculation here: assume it takes, on average, five seconds to perform a task with an SSD, and twenty-five with an HDD. Assuming that I perform that same task, once every day, for the lifetime of the machine, say, three years. That's 20/3 600 x 365.25 x 3 = 6.09 hours. I think the approximately three hundred dollar difference between a 500GB HDD and a 500GB SSD is worth much more than six hours extra time, which can net me thirty dollars of pay, at the rate of $5/hr of work. It's all a matter of opportunity cost. And I have a hybrid setup - most of my 'mission-critical' applications are still on the SSD.

Then, I do not understand - how does a smaller SSD make initial installation longer?

Are user libraries considered 'system folders'? I was not aware of that. Furthermore, I believe based on the power ratings printed on the SSD and HDD, that the difference in battery life is negligible in the grand scheme of things. Yes, there is a difference, of perhaps a few minutes. Yet the deviation of the duration of every full battery discharge is also about the same. Hence, there is nearly no apparent net effect on battery life.

Finally, I have dropped the notebook several times and have yet to see the HDD die. However, to be fair, I have also seen notebooks where all the data was lost due to a bad drop and hence a failed HDD. Maybe I got lucky.

My secondary OS X drive is barely touched at all, and is nearly as good as a clean installation, save for MS Office and Illustrator.

To summarise: the initial cost difference between an SSD and HDD is not small, and, to me at least, is worth more than the differences in user experience while using an HDD versus a SDD. This does not mean I disregard the benefits of a solid state drive - they are very real. Yet the benefits diminish with increasing drive capacity, which roughly corresponds to how the drive is being used. A 2 TB HDD is probably used as an archive or for media storage, that is not accessed frequently. Hence there is no need for 300-500 MB/s transfer rates, when 50-80 will suffice.

As for price per unit capacity, I will observe, too. For now, large SSDs are still prohibitively expensive for me. The day a hypothetical 500 GB Samsung 8X0 PRO reaches the price of a BX100 today, will probably be the day when I buy those 500GB+ SSDs. We still have inflation to account for...

 

I agree with disagreeing - it's what unites us all.

But note that the size of the nand capacity is an indicator of the performance of an SSD.

See:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9144/crucial-bx100-120gb-250gb-500gb-1tb-ssd-review


Picking the latest random SSD review with multiple capacities and lets just agree that the manufacturer's spec's are believable, the 120GB SSD is at ~40% of the 500GB and larger SSD and still 50% slower than the 250GB model (sequential write - which brings SSD's down to HDD territory...).

Even the read speeds are affected although the spec's do not indicate this so easily (spec's are based on new/unused nand and/or a secure erased drive).

Your calculations are way off. You're assuming a single tasks worth of time savings - your storage subsystem is doing many, many tasks at a time.

Even at $5 per hour for 40Hrs/WK x 4.33 WKs/Month x 3 Months ($2580), over three years you would be ahead almost three months minimum with an SSD (depending on your workflow, of course) - much more than even buying 8 SSD's vs. HDD's over that time period (if you could use them all...).

This is a basic calculation that is the basis of why I always recommend 'buy as much computer as you can afford'. And the same applies to SSD's too.


Yes, User folders are system folders. And the increased power is not the difference from an SSD to an HDD. It is the fact that both are used consecutively many, many times a second with Windows simply idling...

Yes, there is still a marked difference in price between a HDD and an SSD. But the usability (not strictly 'performance', per se) improvements are an order of magnitude greater.

Your viewpoint right now is very focused on the here and now with concerns for using funds with the best bang for the buck (and I can't argue too much with your conclusions - except to say your weightings are placed wrong). My viewpoint is time (my time, specifically) is so much more important than a one time cost can ever be. Not because I have unlimited funds. But because I know the value of spending even 10x more to get the equivalent back in time saved.

Again, absolute max speeds do not matter if that aspect of your workflow is not stressed. What does matter, increasingly, is that you realize that even at $5 an hour, your time is much more valuable than a $300 one time cost can ever be.


Put it another way... overall:
to spend $1 and 24 hours to setup a system on a 1TB HDD is more expensive than to spend $500 and 24 hours to do the same on an appropriately sized SSD.

Both systems will need the same type of maintenance over the course of their lifecycles - but the HDD will suck the life right out of you by taking at least twice the time to do it - each and every time it is needed (at least weekly, if not monthly, ime).


Hint hint: the $499 difference is not the true cost. Saving a little (or a lot) longer for the SSD is the better option (always).

For me, even if I were to accept your 6 hours savings for a single task over three years - it is still worth it to spend that time with my family instead. Rather than save $300 today which would be only worth about $250 after that 3 year time frame anyway.

Hard, one time hardware costs are easy to swallow. Save for them once and they're forgotten soon afterwards.

Continuous, time-intensive 'soft' costs are ignored at your own peril.

Funds are worthless unless spent. Money in the bank only helps the bankers.

 

My time is definitely worth a lot more than that - I would hope you believe yours is too.

 

*Shrug.* The money I'm about to spend is not mine, it's my dad's. Hence it's more worth to me than whatever more time it takes using an HDD vs an SSD. I could never justify spending $700++ for a 1 TB SSD. He's quite into tech too, so he asks me: 'what exactly do you need that speed for? Are you getting paid for having a faster computer, or does it help your school work so much that the cost is justified?' And the true answer is, no, it doesn't. I personally don't need blazing fast transfer speeds for simple school projects, gaming and my small-scale development. Hence I got the HDD and relegated just the OS and important programs to my small SSD.

 

@alexhawker - Watch the language. We have a low tolerance for vulgarity and bypassing the language filter around here.

 

Perhaps something to consider.... just analogies...

Buying a stripped down bare bones car sans Air Cond., or a Refrigerator sans an ice maker. These are not cheap to add or upgrade after the purchase... just be careful not to back into a corner - in more ways than one. These SSD thingy's last quite some time and it would be a shame to think you're saving in one perspective only to be overpaying via under purchasing in another.

 

Shrug? Hmmm...

Nobody has mentioned that you need to spend $700 for an 1TB SSD - there are much better pricing options available...

But when we spend our own money; we can do whatever we want. When we spend other peoples money though; we should be much more careful, thoughtful and appreciative. Money is their time translated, after all.

When you have a new system and max out each component (not ridiculously; rather, you strive to (always) build a balanced system), you are saving money in the long term. How? By setting up this balanced system once and using the full power of the platform you buy from day one (or very close to it). Making the system balanced at a (much) later date (greater than about 18 months, ime) because of need is not usually a good idea. New wine into old wine skins and all...

A new, balanced, computer system will always cost 'X' amount. The amount saved by skimping is never worth the tradeoff because the solution is always a new system which now cost us 2x 'X'. Even if we don't buy a new system, we are still worse off because we are using a system that keeps us behind, rather than getting us ahead.

Again, upgrading at this point may seem wise... but upgrading a two year old + platform is money wasted when performance per dollar over time is the goal. The above points may seem illogical; but all businesses know that using todays money to fix yesterdays mistakes is the biggest mistake they can make. Sunk costs are a lesson to be learned from, not an opportunity to prosper from.

Once the $$$$ are gone; think what today's dollars can do for you today. Now. Current.

To pay 25% (or more) above what you think you need today and have a system perform much better from day one and last you double the time or more (for at least someone else...) is more cost effective than saving that 25% today and needing to spend an additional 100% (or more...) years sooner.

Money in the bank only helps the bankers. Money spent (more) wisely gives us options to spend as we choose, not as we need/forced to.

If your budget (or your Dad's) allows; always buy as much computing power in a balanced setup as you can. It's not like we're using computers until something better comes along... we'll always be using them - may as well make this relationship work (for us).

 

hey guys, sorry for interrupting your debate but what are a few things I can do to make my SSD last longer (besides overprovisioning)? what kind of utility software should I put on the SSD? Like web browsers (Chrome, Firefox, IE since I think these browsers often create temporary files and such, maybe, maybe not?), Windows Media Players, Office. Those are the ones I usually use.

 

Interrupt? Nah...

Don't even give this a second thought, especially if you're going to OP. Today's SSD's on a current O/S with TRIM and 16GB RAM or more and almost any non-professional workflow you can throw at it will not need any babying at all.

 

I just found out Samsung EVO Pro SSD has 10-year warranty and I heard Kingston does too. Why do they do that? I'm just a bit curious.

 

Just a marketing/selling point.

I'd still refuse a Kingston drive if one were offered to me for free, though.

Secondly, EVO doesn't come with a 10-year warranty, but Pro does.

 

Warranties on storage drives? Waste of money, imo.

I would not surrender a used drive to anyone even if promised to upgrade to the latest and greatest 10 years down the road. Yeah; my data (and my clients data) is that valuable to me.

The only way a storage drive leaves my possession is via Hammer Time (TM). Not the bad music video - the 16oz hammer coming at the platter or the nand chips (the only thing you need to destroy on a drive...) with the pent up fury of a devoted user, scorned.

 

Bit neolithic .

Use zero-ing if the drive's worth a re-use. For low-capacity spinnies; dismantle and hold magnet to platters; neat drinks coaster, incredibly strong. And the spinner might come in handy as a nice, quiet dc motor.

Before destroying a hdd completely; remove case and have it run bare for a while; marvel of technology.

Hammer's at the end, don't worry:

 

Amazon is having deal from prime user, Crucial MX100 512gb at $160, Samsung 850 EVO 500gb at $164. Should I buy either of them? The deal will end soon but tilleroftheearth already showed me the Mushkin Enhanced Reactor 512gb at $170 which is original price.

 

MX100 would be my choice if that's the capacity that you're looking for and the price that you're willing to pay.

 

I can agree with ajkula66, but this is my thought process:

For a mere $10 difference, I would not sweat too much over these entry level drives. What I would take into consideration is cost (as stated), local availability (which to me means instant 'return-ability') and my expectations/workloads they would be subjected to.

If snappiness, light workloads and minimal power consumption are on your mind, the 850 Evo may be the best deal right now. Just don't install Magician (unless there is a firmware update that has proven itself to be useful).

 

I'd also recommend the 500GB 850 EVO. I also see no reason to avoid installing Samsung Magician. You don't have to run it very often, but it's a helpful utility.

 

With all due respect to both tilleroftheearth and djembe, I just have an *extremely* difficult time recommending a TLC-based drive regardless of its *initial* performance at such a small difference in price. If the figures were $50 (TLC) vs. $150 (MLC) I might support such a suggestion, but not in the current reality.

My $0.02 only...

 

Unless you are running RAPID (highly NOT RECOMMENDED if maximum real world performance is your goal), it is always running for no reason at all. Again; useful just for proven firmware updates...

I stand by my observation that the 1TB 840 EVO is one of the fastest SSD's I have seen for 'snappiness'. The latest firmware (so far) seems to have resolved the issues that plagued it (slow read speed on old files).

The $4 extra is well worth the cost for the intended (assumed) workloads I presented. Especially as this is stacked 3D 40nm nand, but still TLC topology.

I agree 100% against recommending any TLC drives for real work/sustained workloads - but I suspect this isn't one of those use cases.

 

@Tiller, You're right that Magician always runs by default, but I took it out of startup and only run it when needed. And that works for me.

@ajkula66, I'm more comfortable recommending the 850 EVO than the 840 EVO or other TLC SSDs using 10-19nm nodes because the 850 EVO uses larger-process-node NAND, which inherently can withstand more program erase cycles. So even though it's TLC, it's much more resilient than TLC NAND at smaller nodes.

 

Magician is started by the task manager when logging into an administrator account - by default. It doesn't start when logging into a standard account because it doesn't have the required permissions to execute the commands.

 

Hello, I 'm thinking about getting a Kingston M2 SM2280S3 120Gb SSD for my MSI, any returns on it ?
It is using TLC memory or not ?
It's cheap soooo..
Your advices please

 

I would not recommend anything that small (capacity) nor the M.2 form factor at this point either (runs too hot, throttles, much worse QD1 performance than a good 2.5" SSD).

See:
http://www.legitreviews.com/kingston-sm2280s3-120gb-m-2-ssd-review_148015/6

With a small drive like that, of course it will be 'kept full' and performance will plummet to HDD levels just as they found (and I've been saying about (small capacity) SSD's for over half a decade now.

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...-laptop-have-2015.778701/page-2#post-10050334


OP'ing, imo, is not an option with any SSD you can buy today. At least; it's not an option if you want a chance of hitting the highest performance promised on the box (and even then, it still isn't close at all...).

Finally, Kingston as an SSD brand is not what I would trust in any of my systems nor what I can ethically recommend (after all, they just put parts together and slap their name on it). Combined with all the other negatives of the specific model you're asking about; I would say don't do it.

I really think you will be limiting your MSI by putting in this SSD.

Save for a much bigger capacity (and don't forget to account for OP'ing) and concentrate on 2.5" drives today and for the foreseeable future. That is, if you want a system that is consistently and sustainably faster, without throttling/heat issues for the storage subsystem and will not be needed to be upgraded within weeks of buying it either (because that 111GB nominal capacity - ~75GB user usable, after OP'ing - is just too small to run a modern O/S on with any level of programs installed).

Good luck.

 

And the SSD Bait and Switch would have me avoiding Kingston.
http://www.tweaktown.com/blogs/Chris_Ramseyer/93/bait-and-switch-the-sad-state-of-ssds/index.html

 

I have a stupid question. Can mSATA drive overheat due to bad quality of mSATA to 2.5" adapter?

 

Not a stupid question at all. Which mSATA drive are we discussing to begin with?

 

ajkula66, let's say it's a theoretical question.

 

Theoretically, yeah.

But the connector is not the issue. It is the tiny/exposed dies that connect to nothing but air that are the mSATA formats downfall.

If you can use thermal pads on the nand and controller chips that touch an external/internal metal frame, that will be more ideal.

If the design of the mSATA to 2.5" adaptor 'hide' the chips... that would be a design fault of the adaptor right there.

 

So I should go for a Crucial M500 240GB ? More capacity and then less slowness ?

 

That's an older drive and not really a stellar performer. Are there any other options available to you?

 

The other SSD are not really with my budget, I can get a used one for 70 euros (3 monthes old, used in RAID 0 with 3 other drives).

Transcend MTS800 M.2 128Go 110 euro
Crucial MX200 250Gb 110euro
Samsung 850 Evo 250gb 120euro