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

Starlight5, yeah. That was also my first choice but I'm a bit skeptical about the price drop. As I remember it was over $300, probably $360. But I guess it's just my paranoia.

well, I guess MLC or TLC doesn't really matter then. Maybe just peace of mind.

UPDATE: check newegg today and the 1TB Mushkin is back to $330. Apparently, there was a rebate on 9/28. Well, I was moving to a new place so couldn't do anything.

 

just found out this SSD in newsletter from Newegg, SanDisk X300 1TB at $270 ($300 with promo code EMCKAKV25). But I cannot find any review for it, not sure if it's any good. Speed seems good for the price I suppose, 4KB random read/write is 98k/67k (or 98k/74k according to SanDisk). Any thought?

 

This is the kind of SSD I would use in an external enclosure as a USB 'key'.

But to install it as an O/S drive? No.

You get what you pay for. Pay small, expect nothing (literally).

Marketing 'speeds' mean nothing. Unless you just want to use the drive empty and bm it...

 

thanks. I'm a bit skeptical because I cannot find any review for it to see how it performs in real life.

But what makes an SSD like this one "bad"? How about the Mushkin enhanced reactor? You recommended it a while back but it's just a bit more expensive than this SanDisk X300. I'm still not sure which SSD would suit me best. I don't need one for productivity, not yet anyway so I think I would have 3 best options, Samsung 850 EVO ($340), SanDisk Ultra II ($320), Mushkin Enhanced Reactor (currently $290).

 

One strategy you can use to choose between three cost options is to pick the middle. The cheapest may have sub-par performance, but the most expensive may just be marketing hype - there's a good chance the middle option is somewhere in the middle.

 

kaze no tama, Mushkin Reactor is MLC NAND, while Sandisk X300 and Ultra II are TLC. Regarding you get what you pay for... my SSDs are literally the cheapest available, however their performance when filled to the top is almost the same as empty - thanks to 30% OP, I guess. Instead of getting more expensive model, I'd rather get a bigger cheap one and OP it to a larger degree - it will still have much more capacity. Unless there are reliability concerns (the case with TLC vs MLC NAND; Sandforce vs all other controllers; Kignston, OCZ and other notorious brands or certain models), I believe there is absolutely no reason for a consumer to pay more for the same capacity. Hence the Mushkin over mentioned Sandisks recommendation, despite it having worse performance in some scenarios.

 

@alexhawker, thanks for the tip. Though, the Mushkin and Ultra II have the same price but Newegg is having a rebate on Mushkin, I suppose.

it's high time I made my decision. I asked this question back in July or something, indecisiveness and some other factor. Will order the Mushkin from Newegg.

I'm no expert but from what I see here, the Mushkin seems better.
http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/SanDisk-Ultra-II-240GB-vs-Mushkin-Reactor-1TB/2548vsm19867

even if it's not, well, excuse my language, yolo, right?

 

You are right it's been too long you have been researching your SSD........ Hahaha just kidding.

http://m.newegg.com/Product/index?itemnumber=20-147-374w
Around $300.00 with /10% off
code BTEKAKX24 (targeted)
Samsung in my opinion will be a very good pick.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

 

@ron6400, I cannot use your link. Is that a Samsung 850 EVO? Even if it's, the code doesn't seem to work because my email is no valid for redemption. I do subscribe for their newsletter tho.

Actually, I didn't research anything. Mostly because of my laziness and indecisiveness. Other factor being that I couldn't get a copy of Windows 8.1 from my uni. Eventually got it but couldn't download from their website. Had to find an iso myself and hopefully the key will work.

 

I sent you a mobile link. If you want regular link let me know. Jet. Com is also having a sale so you can check prices before you pull the trigger. I just ordered a graphic card on jet saved $50.00 and no tax for me.


Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

 

what's that item on Newegg? I can search it myself. Use my phone and the link works but didn't see any SSD tho.

never used jet.com before and they don't seem to have 1TB SSD either.

 

Crucial MX200 2.5" 1TB SATA 6Gbps (SATA III) Micron 16nm MLC NAND Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) CT1000MX200SSD1 - $319
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148950

• Max Sequential Read: Up to 555 MBps
• Max Sequential Write: Up to 500 MBps
• 4KB Random Read: Up to 100,000 IOPS
• Controller: Marvell 88SS9189 with Micron Custom Firmware
• Model #: CT1000MX200SSD1
• Item #: N82E16820148950

 

Try this link and scroll down to choose 1TB version
http://m.newegg.com/Product/index?s..._-cables-_-na-_-na&itemnumber=N82E16820147441

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

 

SanDisk Ultra II 2.5" 960GB SATA III Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) SDSSDHII-960G-G25 - $319
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820173013

• Max Sequential Read: Up to 550 MBps
• Max Sequential Write: Up to 500 MBps
• 4KB Random Read: Up to 99,000 IOPS
• 4KB Random Write: Up to 83,000 IOPS
• Model #: SDSSDHII-960G-G25
• Item #: N82E16820173013

 

yes, I tried that one but my email is invalid for the promo code.

well, I've decided to go with my original choice from 3 months ago. Plus, the Mushkin is now $30 less. No much but still, my favorite quote from my favorite hero in DotA 2, "every coin helps."

 

Just Sign up for there newsletter and they will start sending you coupon codes.
You can unsubscribe anytime you want.

 

kaze no tama, looks like a solid choice at $289

The write speed is a bit low, as are the IOPS, but it will be so much faster than an HDD, the delta between 1TB's will pale in comparison

Mushkin Enhanced Reactor 2.5" 1TB SATA III Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) MKNSSDRE1TB - $289
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226596

• Max Sequential Read: 560MB/s
• Max Sequential Write: 460MB/s
• 4KB Random Read: Up to 74,000 IOPS
• Controller: Silicon Motion SM2246EN
• Model #: MKNSSDRE1TB
• Item #: N82E16820226596

 

Two weeks ago installed 2 mx200's for my sister and nephew one in a macbook pro and second one in a ThinkPad they are working flawless.

 

I do sign up for their newsletter. Also got a promo code for the Samsung 850 EVO but it has expired as I remember.

 

Newegg has a new promo code for 500GB Samsung 850 EVO is for $164 - $14.01 w/ promo code AF15SSD1019A = $149.99. Shipping is free

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...-cables-_-na-_-na&Item=N82E16820147373&cm_sp=

 

thank you but I'm aiming for the 1TB.

 

alright, my SSD has arrived today. One day earlier, thought it was gonna be on Friday since it's a 3 day shipping. The packaging doesn't look very good tho. I'm downloading some drivers on my HDD, ready for new OS install and I have a few more questions.

- Which is the best way to place the SSD? I remember asking this question before but I cannot find my old post. I draw a picture here so it's harder for me to forget. 1 or 2?

Spoiler: I'm not a great artist :(

- What is the best way to install new SSD on my system (This question I have asked many times but still a bit confused)? I have a HDD with OS (windows 7) and it's running. Now since I'm gonna install a new OS (windows 8.1) on the SSD, do I need to remove the HDD => install OS on SSD => put HDD back in and format the old HDD partition that has OS on it? Or I can just install OS on SSD and format the HDD while installing the new OS (choose boot priority)? I think they're the same but I heard that removing HDD then installing SSD will save me a lot of hassle. Maybe not physical hassle but digital hassle?

Many thanks.

 

@tilleroftheearth sammy 950 pro single and raid 0 review came out on tomshardware by chris use to be from TT.

what are your thoughts on 2 drive raid 0 being slower in some cases at qd1 comparison to single drive lol, is this something going to get fixed in the future or just how NVMe is? or simply because it is PCIE.

 

That is correct (Windows sometimes modifies secondary drives during install, for some unfathomable reason ...). Best option is have only the single OS drive present when installing. Wipe secondary afterwards, making sure to wipe boot sector as well (using ' diskpart clean' option).

Best location is wherever it'll cool better. Difference won't be significant, but every bit helps.

 

thank you b̶u̶t̶ ̶u̶n̶f̶o̶r̶t̶u̶n̶a̶t̶e̶l̶y̶,̶ ̶I̶ ̶h̶a̶d̶ ̶a̶l̶r̶e̶a̶d̶y̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶t̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶w̶i̶n̶d̶o̶w̶s̶ ̶b̶e̶f̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶I̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶.̶ ̶S̶o̶ ̶n̶o̶w̶ ̶I̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶k̶n̶o̶w̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶m̶y̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶b̶l̶e̶m̶ ̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶n̶o̶w̶.̶ ̶W̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶I̶ ̶o̶p̶e̶n̶e̶d̶ ̶B̶I̶O̶S̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶h̶o̶s̶e̶ ̶S̶S̶D̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶b̶o̶o̶t̶ ̶o̶p̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶#̶1̶,̶ ̶m̶y̶ ̶l̶a̶p̶t̶o̶p̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶b̶o̶o̶t̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶m̶e̶s̶s̶a̶g̶e̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶s̶ ̶"̶R̶e̶b̶o̶o̶t̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶e̶l̶e̶c̶t̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶p̶e̶r̶ ̶b̶o̶o̶t̶ ̶d̶r̶i̶v̶e̶.̶"̶ ̶N̶o̶w̶ ̶I̶'̶m̶ ̶u̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶H̶D̶D̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶o̶o̶t̶ ̶o̶p̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶#̶1̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶I̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶c̶h̶o̶o̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶W̶i̶n̶d̶o̶w̶s̶ ̶8̶.̶1̶ ̶(̶S̶S̶D̶)̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶W̶i̶n̶d̶o̶w̶s̶ ̶7̶ ̶(̶H̶D̶D̶)̶.̶ ̶S̶o̶ ̶I̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶s̶t̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶S̶S̶D̶,̶ ̶I̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶b̶o̶o̶t̶ ̶o̶p̶t̶i̶o̶n̶.̶

Well, suddenly I got a BSOD and I tried changing the boot option afterward. Apparently, my SSD is the boot option #1 now.

I leave 345 GB (of 931 GB) as unallocated (Did I do it right?). The SSD seems a bit hot tho. It reached 50 C when I was doing the benchmark. Now it's sitting at 40 C. The HDD is 35 C but maybe it's because I'm not using it.

Spoiler: Should I?

Spoiler: Does this fly now?

 

Looks good, no need to worry. For a continuous workload you'd want to actively cool the ssd, but under normal use there's no reason to; throttle only kicks in starting at ~55°C (ymmv).

Leaving part of the drive unallocated is also fine, but you want to make sure TRIM is actually active, too. Run trimcheck to verify it's working as it should.

 

Unless you're doing HD (RAW) Video Editing, RAID0 is useless and dangerous too (yeah; even with SSD's).

See:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9702/samsung-950-pro-ssd-review-256gb-512gb/3

If/when it gets fixed, buy the drive then. Today? Just the same Samsung garbage that I would avoid like the plague.

Not only does it still throttle itself, it is barely able to make a $1 difference in real world usage too.

See:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-950-pro-ssd,4313-5.html

As I keep saying; Samsung SSD's just seem laggy to me. Built in to the hardware and burned into the firmware.

Buying an M.2 drive today doesn't change anything of what I've thought of them previously. Yeah; 'scores' have improved and spec's have magically increased.

But real world use is still effectively at SATA levels for most workloads and the throttling issues are only getting worse, not better.

If everyone voted with their wallets and sent Samsung a STRONG message that reiterated garbage won't be tolerated, maybe they might give us the SSD drives we want and need, instead of boasting 'firsts' and high 'scores' with sub par products that, at the current 256GB capacity/performance point, is just a slap in the face to anyone with a real job to do with these tools.

 

the biggest disappointment i saw was power usage in that small form factor, and performance increase wasnt anything much over sm951. considering its same controller different firmware, and different nand flash, performance prob won't differ too much.

even in raid 0, performance drops in some application which made little sense. what Chris told me is that samsung's NVMe driver is better than MS's driver but theres just not enough time yet until its matured so performance will likely still grow within next revision i guess we can only wait.

i'd say maybe 960 pro if there is one, performance would be much better.

 

Always install the faster disk in the 1 slot. Some manufacturors, like my Alienware, are very strange, my 1st slot has 6GB/s and my 2nd slot only has 3GB/s according to Intel Rapid Storage.

I didn't know about that when I bought the system, and installed it in the wrong, slower spot, I think, I throttled my own SSD for over 1 year because of that.

 

Seraiel, yup, and even worse, some manufacturers put the boot drive in that 3Gbps bay new from the factory

Asus shipped some 751's configured that way. In their case, there was some justification.

The first bay, the one with 6gbps, also hosts the M.2 PCIE slot, which couldn't be used if a 2.5" drive was installed.

That model didn't come with a M.2 PCIE drive, but it did come with the M.2 PCIE connector, so Asus put the 2.5" drive in the 2nd bay so as to not block access to the M.2 PCIE slot.

This meant that everyone with that model had their boot drive on SATA II instead of SATA III.

Nice catch finding it on your own

 

not sure about my machine but Sager installed the default HDD on the 2 slot so I just put my SSD on the 1 slot.

 

I'm very sure, that your Sager then has 2 SATA III slots, so it doesn't matter, or that the person that built the system anticipated that you would install an SSD, otherwise it would make absolutely no sense.

And just a very short addition because I found an "error" or something that can be misjudged in my post: When I wrote "install to slot 1" , I should have written "install in the lowest number slot" , because my AW i. e. has Slot 1 and Slot 0, which initially made me think I installed the SSD correctly, until I took out the HD when installing Win 10, and then saw, that my machine has an even lower slot than slot 1.

 

well, my HDD is slot 0 and SSD is at slot 1 and I'm not quite sure if my laptop has 2 SATA III slots, think it does tho but cannot find any information to confirm. This is the benchmark I did after I installed it.

Spoiler: Benchmark

 

You could google your chipset to get 100% confirmation, but the values look very much like SATA III, they're almost identical to the ones of my 840 Pro, while SATA II SSD's usually don't get much more than 250 MB / s on sequential read and write.

 

Definitely SATA III, there is no way you could reach those numbers with SATA II

 

Didn't think it was worthy of me to create a whole new thread to ask this question, and I saw 'advice' in the title of this thread. What will be better as a boot drive for my laptop, Samsung 840 Evo 250 GB or Sandisk Ultra II 480GB? I ask because I just bought the Ultra II off amazon for an amazing deal, and I already have 840 Evo as the boot drive, and my current plan is to just replace my 320GB HDD with the 480GB Ultra II & continue to use my Evo for the boot disk (so using the Ultra II for games, data, etc). I know TLC nand is kind of hated, but I couldn't pass up the price per GB here in the UK (£79 for 480GB of SSD storage is the best I've seen!). P.S. The data drive will be SATA II as I only have one SATA III slot in my laptop.

 

I wouldn't worry and I'd go like you say, you'll be an happy camper replacing and HDD with an SSD anyways.

Since your data will mainly be stored on the other drive than your boot one, it makes sense to devote the one that has less capacity (250GB) to the OS, and the one which has more capacity (480GB) to your data.

On top, you can still use the free space of the 250GB to store stuff you may need to access quicker, as it will be on SATA III, but unless we're talking moving very large sequential files, difference should not be that noticeable.

Just as an FYI about SATA:
SATA = Serial Advanced Technology Attachment

Revision • Theorical Transfer Rate • Theorical Transfer Rate • Real World Transfer Tate
SATA I • 1,5 Gbit/s • 192 Mo/s • 150 Mo/s
SATA II • 3 Gbit/s • 384 Mo/s • 300 Mo/s
SATA III • 6 Gbit/s • 768 Mo/s • 600 Mo/s

 

Thanks for the info. Yep, my first plan is to replace the data HDD with the Ultra II SSD, and just use a Macrium Reflect image of the HDD to image straight onto the SSD - that way all the links to the new disk will remain in place for all my games, etc. And that's a good point you make about devoting the more space to the data - ie the 480GB Ultra II. Another bonus is that I get to use Samsung RAPID if I keep the 840 Evo as the boot drive - (I know, some people despise RAPID, but I find things like program installations super fast with it). I suppose the reason for my asking the question in the first place - I was just curious if there was much of a performance difference between an 840 Evo 250GB drive & the Sandisk Ultra II 480GB drive in terms of usage as a boot drive. But, at the moment there seems to be a lot of plus points in just using the Ultra II as the data drive.

 

I saw that deal.. It's pretty good.. I think you'll be fine if it's just a storage drive.....

 

If you only have one SATA III slot, then by all means install the bigger harddrive in it and let it be your system-drive too. You can use the other one for backups, but the question imo is a no-brainer, only one SATA III slot, ofc. install the bigger SSD so one has the SATA III advantage on more GBs.

 

Ah yes, the SATA 3 advantage on a greater percentage of the data - I see your point! If I did put the bigger Ultra II in the SATA 3 slot, then I'd transfer the smaller Evo to the SATA 2 slot and use it as extra storage (wouldn't use it as a backup). The SATA 3 advantage would probably offset any performance loss between the Ultra 2 and the Evo - and that's assuming that the Evo is faster? Hmm, I may take the easy option first and install the Ultra replace the HDD, and then I may experiment later with doing what you suggest & moving the Ultra to be the boot disk. I have read that the SATA 2 to SATA 3 advantage is not that great in real world situations - random access is pretty much the same, sequential is where you lose out, but I don't do a lot of large sequential and I'd lose Samsung RAPID too.

 

Just an update to my previous post and also another question for you guys. The 480GB Ultra 2 arrived today & I installed it as my Data/Games drive in Port 0 (Port 1 contains my Evo SSD housing the operating system & programs). Now, I had thought that Port 0 (480GB Ultra 2) was limited to 3Gb/s, but I've found out that it runs for 6Gb/s some of the time & then sometimes switches somewhat randomly down to 3Gb/s. There was an M17xR3 thread outlining this problem years ago and people who installed their operating system in the 'faulty' Port 0 sometimes had instability & BSOD, however I have my operating system installed on the stable 6Gb/s port so I'm thinking I might be immune to the instability. Does anyone have any ideas if I'll run into instability or issues if I keep my Games/Data drive (Ultra 2 480GB) in the Port 0 where it occasionally clocks down to 3Gb/s (from 6Gb/s - essentially clocking down from SATA 3 down to SATA 2 randomly)? I'm not that bothered by the fact that sometimes that drive will run at only 3Gb/s, I'm just wanting to avoid any instability - I'm currently leaving it in this configuration to see how it goes, but does anyone have any ideas if this occasional random downclocking from 6Gb/s to 3Gb/s will cause issues for a data drive? (Some initial testing I've done shows there could be a link between heavy writes causing the downclocking to 3Gb/s - it's happened twice during running the write portion of Crystal Disk Mark, but doesn't happen every run. Once it downclocks to 3Gb/s it seems to be staying that way until a reboot where it will be 6Gb/s again.).

EDIT 13/12: I can confirm that the downclocking from 6Gb/s (SATA 3) down to 3Gb/s (SATA2) happens during periods of very intense disk activity (either reads or writes). Those times are rare though, so it's staying at 6Gb/s for basically all of the time when playing games or when being used normally to open files and programs. It downclocks quite reliably (about 50% of the time) when running intense disk benchmarks like Crystal DiskMark or when copying large folders or files in the tens of GB size. No stability or weird issues being caused though, so will leave my laptop in this configuration - I'm pleased with the purchase of the Sandisk 480GB Ultra II. (Note that this is not a fault of the SSD - it's a quirk with one of the ports in my laptop the M17xR3)

 

I think there is an unlocked BIOS, version A12 I think which fixed this and made the 2.5" ports run at 6Gb/s...

 

Thanks, I'm already using that one (been using that one for a couple of years) - 'Unlocked A12 BIOS with SATA Tweak' from svl7 at TechInferno. It doesn't cure the random switching of Port 0 though, although today it's been stable at 6Gb/s. I'll keep testing it, and as long as I don't get data corruption or any instability then I'll keep it as is and live with the occasional downclocking to 3Gb/s.

 

Hi.

What the difference between the controller chips below, does the "I" just signify the package type?

SM2246EN and SM I2246EN

Thanks

John.

 

What about ZTC Armor SSDs (m.2 2242)? I am interested in 512GB model, but there ain't any reviews. Couldn't find any info about the brand either, not even a website.

 

I wouldn't use it as a main data drive.. My friend has one of the 128GB ones for playing around in Linux... I've never heard of the brand myself until he told me about it..

 

Anybody heard of a cheap SSD brand called "Zheino" if so is there a toolbox app for Windows like comes with other brands of SSD.

Thanks

John.

 

@TomJGX unknown doesn't necessarily mean bad. But I'd rather contact ZTC and ask for review samples, it's a win-win offer. =) It's harder if they don't even have a website, though. =\

@Tinderbox (UK) no, they don't. There are cheaper drives around, by the way.

 

The company's name is Zeus Technologies and Computing. Maybe you can find the com's info at http://www.corporationwiki.com/p/2bxc24/zeus-technologies-computing-llc . It looks like based at Las Vegas. Some of ZTC's products are listed on MemoryC at https://www.memoryc.com/products/manufacturers/ZTC.html#page=15 and 3-year warranty is granted. Amazon has a lot of reviews on their other earlier SSD products. I guess it's fine to buy their product with warranties...