Upgrading my ASUS Zenbook UX32A

Hey everyone,

First time poster after looking up a few threads here with regards to my laptop. Seems like a really good place for advice.

I'm good with computers, but laptops are a bit of a void area of my expertise, as my main usage has almost always been desktops. To give a more definite estimation of my expertise, i'm qualified to A+ standard, so I can withstand some technical barrages.

So I'm looking into upgrading the 500GB HDD in my Zenbook to a SSD.

Now, based on my previous SSD experience (I run a 128GB Samsung 830 for the OS and core programs on my desktop, never had an issue), my natural instinct was to look at the Samsung 840 series, specifically the 250GB one. It seems to be a really good price right now, and is offering £15 cashback on any purchase.

However, there seems to be some division in opinion on the forum regarding the 840 Basic model, and its use of TLC flash. I was previously a bit clueless of TLC and looked up a linked Anandtech article from a user here, and saw that TLC actually has worse life than MLC. For this reason, some warned against the Samsung, citing reliability and life as reasons to look at the older Crucial M4.

Others yet said that despite the drop in life, it's still a good value SSD that performs well; and judging from some theoretical numbers from AT, will still last 11 years with 10GB worth of writes a day at 3x WA.

My uses for the laptop are mainly my university work (I'm a comp sci student, so writing a number of programs using Visual Studio, as well as standard Office Suite stuff). I'm not doing media editing of any kind or any other form of hugely heavy load applications.

Based on what's been talked about, would the 840 Basic be an alright buy for me, considering its reduced life and performance vs others? While I want to keep cost down as much as possible, I will have an ear for a convincing case for looking at a more expensive, but more reliable drive like the M4 or the 840 Pro.

Thanks for your help.

 

Really? Nothing at all?

 

I'm interested in the exact same question.
...There's quite a bit of information out there, just based on Google searches (840 vs. 840 pro, or m4 vs. 840 pro for example), but nothing really concise when one considers all of the various tests, reviews and comparisons out there.

It also looks like Crucial has replaced the M4 with the M500, which is slowly starting to pop up in some retailers.
This makes this more complicated hahaha..... M4 vs. M500, M500 vs. 840, M500 vs. 840 pro, etc.

I'm going to go to a local computer shop and see what they recommend, and I'll likely ask on what product do they see the least amount of returns & warranty claims.

 

The TLC issue is not a trivial matter when it comes to SSDs, especially for smaller capacities. While it is true that they are still rated for 1000 p/e cycles, you can't ignore the performance inconsistencies plus the potential wear out factor. That being said, you are pretty clear that you aren't going to hammer your drive so the regular 840 looks like a good buy if cost is an issue.

Before you get anything, make sure your prospective SSD is 7mm in Z-height, the second thing is check that your 2.5inch bay is SATAIII as the HGST drive in it is a SATAII model. Otherwise, you will have half of your possible sequential read/write speed.

The problem with budget/mainstream SSDs can be summarized in to 4 key indicators of an SSD design: Performance, Endurance, Reliability and Price where you are only allowed to pick 3.
The m500 series basically has Endurance, Reliability and price in spades but performance is on the lower side
The 840 series has Performance, Reliablity and Price but endurance suffers.

You can have it all in High end SSDs but price will definitely suffer.

 

Thanks for your help on the topic.

I took a look at the M500 and Anandtech's review of it, and it doesn't really look like it will offer much over the 840 for £30 more.

I will probably go for the 840, it's 7mm in height and looks like it will suit my needs and be fairly cheap.

 

Hi there, sorry to jump in on the discussion like this. My partner has just received her UX32A and is keen to rid herself of the ticking noise from the HDD like you were. Did the 840 fit? Were there any issues in upgrading?
I've upgraded a primary disk to SSD before and it took a fair bit of effort, but I know that the OS is (partly?) installed on the 24GB SSD that comes with the zenbook, so it may be fairly straightforward.

Any help on this would be hugely appreciated.

Joni

 

the 840 seems to be the cheapest 240Gb+ SSD drive out there at the moment Solid State Drives (SSD) with capacity from 240GB | Skinflint Price Comparison UK

Being an international student from Hong Kong studying in UK I can tell you straight up that most desktop builders chose plextor M5 series (S,P or extreme) as their system drive, however they are very expensive here in UK. there should be a point that I should state to you straight up, SSDs last a very long time, you wouldn't be stressing it for half a year straight, AnandTech | Samsung SSD 840: Testing the Endurance of TLC NAND
this link is telling us that it should last 20 years, couple years after we get SATA 10 or equivalent where an SSD by that time will be considered slow and replaced by other nano technology (or products developed under quantum technology, if anyone can ever understand quantum mechanics)

 

Thanks for this, but it doesn't answer my question. I need to find out if I can whether or not the 840 fits in the Zenbook UX32A. I have the same model and want to upgrade as well.

Still looking for answers...

Joni

 

Read OP's thread, his UX31A features a 500Gb HDD, this basically tells everyone that a 2.5 inch SSD will work in the machine. windows should not be installed in the 24Gb SSD but instead the 24Gb is used as a cache, anyway if you replace the Hdd, a clean install of windows is required, make sure you have in hand the windows installation USB stick and all the drivers of the laptop in there so you won't need to go online and look for different drivers to download

 

as long as you take the usual optimizations like op, disable pagefile and hibernation, etc you will be okay with the samsung 840.

The SSD Optimization Guide Redesigned | The SSD Review
(note that all these tweaks can be done thru samsungs magician software).
ive also searched the internet for data regarding tlc and the samsung 840, and almost all realworld data and torture tests point to the fact that the samsung 840 will last as long, if not longer than mlc ssd's, a big part of which is because of its excellent controller and firmware.
years ago there was similar upheaval when ssd manufacturers moved from slc's to mlc's. that concern proved to be unfounded as mlc's still last very long. the same is happening now but imho it will be a non issue due to better controllers and firmware and larger capacity drives.
under most normal, consumer; or even light professional video editing scenarios, the tlc samsung 840 will most likely outlive your laptop.

 

look at the forum for the zenbook ux32VD-DB71 very similar model and tilleroftheearth gave me some great advice on which one to pic. The samsung 840 is bad because when it reaches its solid state it gets really slow

 

I don't quite get what you mean by "soliod state", if you are saying performance degradation when filling up the disk to near 100% capacity, further research tells us that in order for ALL the ssds to operate at full speed potential, around 20% of its space needs to be remain empty, thus leading to the term "spare area", this applies to ALL SSDs in which to conclude in your terms of words ALL SSDs gets really slow when it is 100% filled, where in specific terms ALL SSDs will have degraded performance when it is completely filled

 

If I may jump in...

samster712 may be referring to 'steady state' - especially in the Mixed Read/Write scenarios that is the norm for most workstation-type workloads (and yes, QD of 5 or more is easily hit with 'normal' workflows).


See:
HARDOCP - Iometer & Steady State Testing - Seagate 600 and 600 Pro SSD Review


Note in the last graph how the 840 Pro has fairly flat performance vs. the latest Marvell SSD controller...

Even in the Fresh 70/30 Read/Write Mix graph; the 840 Pro is not performing anywhere near what a 3 Core Controller should be capable of. I find this (in my own Samsung 840 Pro 256GB SSD) as a 'lag' in the responsiveness of system (SNB QC, 16GB RAM, Win8x64) vs. my other identical systems except with either an Intel 520 240GB SSD, or a SanDisk Extreme 240GB SSD, or a Crucial M4 256GB/512GB SSD's installed.

Here is a link to that complete conversation:

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/solid-state-drives-ssds-flash-storage/718208-asus-ux32vd-db71.html

 

interesting.
op if you can afford it, get the 500gb version of the sammy 840. you will get more performance and double the endurance of the 256gb version. you will basically be getting enthusiast level performance (except seq writes) at a budget price. and thats why the same sight that tiller links gives it an enthusiast gold award

HARDOCP - Conclusion - Samsung 840 Series 500GB TLC SSD Review

 

Gold award yes: at the beginning of this year...

Better/newer SSD's have been since...

 

the only gold award theyve given since is for the the superspeed enterprise slc ssd, check

 

I am sure it deserves the award at the time - but doesn't mean it hasn't been superseded if a further award hasn't been awarded (yet).


And a sites best 'award' is not my basis for judging the worth of a component. I have the 840 Pro as I've mentioned before and the only award I can see it receive (in real world use) is 'best start up and best shut down'.

Not worth bragging over imo...


Again from the same site:

That last sentence points to the deliberate (or not) tweaking of the firmware to give good benchmark 'scores'. Especially in light of the weak performance in the 'undeniable constant' mixed read/write workloads...

It also is appropriate to point out that the site has given many Gold awards to SSD's, including to the:

Kingston HyperX 3K series (before the 840 Pro was reviewed/awarded)
Corsair Neutron GTX
OCZ Vector
Samsung 840 TLC (no gold stars for me for this series...).
SuperSSpeed S301


Good to note that the reason the S301 above has received a gold award from them is not the performance (the Intel 330 is remarkable close...) but rather the other reasons that SLC nand is 'superior', like higher heat endurance, lower write latencies (though this doesn't translate into a tangibly better performance) and higher nand endurance (though again I didn't see in the whole article what the #1 reason for going with SLC nand... - what is the gauranteed endurance of this SSD?).


What all of the above is saying is that gold awards are a dime a dozen - and just because one is given doesn't mean it is given for any real world performance superiority either.

 

If that's the case then you shouldn't be referencing the site either ;-)



Sent from a Galaxy far, far away

 

But I'm not referencing the 'awards' - I'm referencing the data in the reviews...

 

but the awards are specifically taken from the data and reviews of course.
i just find it biased how you constantly reference the site, and yet only cherry pick the portions that agree with your theories and pov's and choose to ignore the rest.
but hey if thats makes you happy, so be it

 

But, they (the awards) are not (taken from the data/reviews).

Yes. I do cherry pick (and analyze and compare to my own experience and make sure the 'data' presented passes the smell test...).