Which 1 is the best SSD?

120GB Patriot Pyro SE Solid State Drive (SSD Serial-ATA III)
120GB Patriot Wildfire Solid State Drive (SSD Serial-ATA III))(Sandforce w/ 3x NAND)
120GB OCZ Vertex 3 Sandforce Solid State Drive(Up to Sequential Read 550MB/s - Write 500MB/s SSD Serial-ATA III)
120GB OCZ Vertex 3 MAX IOPS Sandforce Solid State Drive(Up to Sequential Read 550MB/s - Write 500MB/s SSD Serial-ATA III)
128GB Samsung 830 Series Solid State Drive(Up to Sequential Read 520MB/s - Write 320MB/s Serial-ATA III - 6GB/s)
120GB Intel 520 Series Solid State Drive (Up to Sequential Read 550MB/s - Write 500MB/s SSD2 Serial-ATA III)


I'll be purchasing a new laptop soon. And I've decided to get a SSD as well.
Just wonder, which 1 is the best SSD?

Thanks

 

either samsung or intel

 

Samsung or Intel would be the best choices, the 520 is a bit unproven at this point though, but Intel will fix things if something needs fixing.

After that, it would be between the wildfire and vertex 3 max IOPS, the sandofrce controller had it's issues, a minority of people are still experiencing them, but it has been fixed for a lot of people. However, in general, the controller seems to play nicer with the 32nm NAND that the wildfire and V3 MAX IOPS have. I'd still consider the SF-2281 controller a bit of a gamble, but no an avoid at all cost piece of hardware like it was before.

 

So, the Samsung will be the best choice at this point...

 

Samsung would be the proven choice. However, i have good confidence in Intel and reviews of the 520 place it as a very good drive. It's just that since it's new, some minor issues might creep up. Intel is usually fast at fixing those.

 

SandForce has a long track record of issues and not being fixed. I would opt for the PM830.

 

I've been using this chart myself:
Tom's Hardware's SSD Hierarchy Chart : Best SSDs For The Money: February 2012

I'm leaning towards the Samsung 256GB myself.

On Amazon, the Samsung 830 desktop kit has 23 reviews rating it 5 out of 5. Laptop kit only 4.5 go figure...

 

That chart can be a helpful reference but it's important to think about more than just speed when you make a purchase. Lot of drives that are high on that list I wouldn't touch because of the issues with sandforce.

 

Yes Minerals makes a good point, unfortunately many places judges how good an SSD is by how "fast" it is. Unfortunately those are just benchmark numbers, and yes SandForce is going to top the list of fastest for the money. But what are you really "getting" for that speed? Instability, BSOD, issues that SandForce won't fix. So is that really worth all that "extra" speed. For me, I'd rather have a reliable SSD, so Intel 320 series is the choice for me for still getting decent read/write speeds, and Intel reliability (I'm on my 4th Intel 320 series SSD, no hiccups yet). With any half decent SSD, it's still going to have decent read/write speeds, and still have the .1ms latency, giving your OS that snappy feeling. Now if your work truly involves copying data 24/7, then yes you WILL benefit from SATA 3, but most users do not do that. So if you do, I would recommend the PM830 over the M4 anyday, Crucial seems to have a fair bit of issues, that are only fixed via a firmware update or RMA. Best is to have an SSD without issues...hence we get back to Samsung/Intel.

 

Okay, thanks you people. I've made my choice on samsung 830 128gb.
Fast isn't that important for me, I rather choose a slower & stable SSD.

 

You won't really notice the "slower" anyways.

 

btw, how is the performance between the SSD and 750GB (w/ 8GB SSD Memory) Seagate XT 7200RPM NCQ Hybrid (Serial-ATA III 600 - 32MB Cache) ?

Is it really a big difference between their speed? Or any problem about the hybrid drive?

 

The SSD will always win out.

When data resides and is read from the SSD cache, the Momentus XT performs just slightly worse than an average SSD. For example, things that take an SSD 12 seconds, may take the Momentus XT 13-15 seconds. Which isn't too bad consider the price difference of $$/GB.

However, if the data you request is *not* found within the SSD, then there's no comparison. The SSD will blow the Momentus XT out of the water. Differences could be 3X to 8X longer on the XT as at that point it acts like any other 7200 RPM platter based HDD.

So, if you are price conscious and tend to use the same set of files read over and over again (which can sit within the SSD portion of the XT), the Momentus XT makes one heckuva drive - even if you use it for a data drive (assuming files are used as a library for other things). Otherwise one may want to look at a normal SSD.

HTH

 

120GB Intel 520 Series Solid State Drive (Up to Sequential Read 550MB/s - Write 500MB/s SSD2 Serial-ATA III)

 

There are a fair number of good SSDs out there now....many of the Sandforce drives are the fastest on paper and in benchmarks...and I do believe that many of the issues have been fixed...however....that being said...theres not enough difference in speed with real world use for me to choose one over the proven reliability of a Samsung or Intel....I owned a Patriot Wildfire...which was blazing fast...and I had no issues...but when I got the opportunity to trade it out for a Samsung 830 256GB...I picked 2 up and havn't looked back...they are reasonably priced, very fast, reliable and the Magician software makes them well worth it in my opinion!

 

Incredible how PM830 has become the NBR choice, I have had a great experience with Crucial M4, no issues what so ever in 3 ssds, it even has a good 6 months more of being in the market than PM830 with very good record of reliability.

 

The amount of issues Samsung has had is an order of magnitude less than the amount of issues with Intel/Crucial, which in turn is another order of magnitude less than the amount of issues with Sandforce and its partners.

It's no surprise that everyone loves Samsung, given how from a ratio perspective they make generally reliable Intel/Crucial look as bad as Sandforce.

 

I'm not sure I'm seeing this. In the last week or so, for the posts regarding "what kind of SSD should I get", I think on all of them someone mentioned the M4.

While Samsung SSDs, in general, has had slightly less issues, I think that statement about orders of magnitude is completely inaccurate as we don't have *all* of the data from the manufacturers to know this for certain.

 

The three I always see recommended are the M4, 830 and 320. I used to never see the M4 recommended tho, but it's becoming more popular because the price has dropped pretty fast. Probably $40 in 3 weeks. Then it goes on sale and becomes even cheaper.

 

Samsung has never had any widespread issues on any of their drives, unlike the 320's 8MB bug, or the X25-M's bricking issues with early firmware, or the M4's 5200 hour time bomb, or the C300's freezes.

If Intel, Crucial, and Samsung were all to release a new SSD today, I'd have no problems getting Samsung's drive right away, but I'd have to seriously think twice (and probably wait a few months) before getting Intel's or Crucial's.

Recommendations are made based on the level of confidence people have about various drives/controllers/companies. Sandforce is horrible, Intel and Crucial are good, but only Samsung is excellent.

 

It is not excellent. it has problem when under heavy writes.
Samsung 830 Series 128GB Solid State Drive Review - Final Thoughts :: TweakTown USA Edition
Huge performance issues with my Samsung 830 - ssd - Storage

 

Probably because Samsung was never intended for off the shelf market. OEM is very different from off the shelf as the vendor have to validate it.

If you use something SF(or OCZ) tested setup, even them would have no problem.

All these are bugs that failed to handle corner cases which would only surface on wide spread use. Just like when Apple claimed their stuff are more reliable than Windows(only because they have one configuration to deal with, whereas Microsoft has tens of thousands).

 

Intel SSDs only have minor issues at the beginning, but generally are fixed quick. I've owned plenty of G2 and 320 series SSDs, never had a real issue. Samsung maybe does more testing, who knows but I'm sure they don't sell the volume Intel or Crucial does. And Intel has nowhere near the failures of OCZ and Sandforce, which I would avoid with a 1000 foot pole.

 

I would speculate that due to Samsung developing the entire SSD, it would make sense that it would have less issues than the others. Intel used to make their own SSDs with a joint venture from Micron but have now outsourced their controllers similar to Micron's retail company, Crucial, to Marvell.

 

The 8MB bug happens on Intel's own controller (both x25m and 320), nothing to do with the Marvell CPU.

This is really nothing but simple software bug resulting from interaction with BIOS/chipset. Samsung has no advantage here.

 

Given how Samsung has been a popular choice with OEMs like Dell and Apple since the very beginning, whereas Intel only started to make inroads about halfway through the X25-M G2's lifetime and Crucial/Sandforce are still rare, I'd wager Samsung has probably sold more SSDs than anyone except maybe Toshiba, the other OEM favorite.

Those RBX drives in OEM systems won't win any SSD benchmarks, and most people here on NBR don't even think about them, but they're everywhere in all sorts of laptop configurations and they've proven themselves to be extremely reliable.

 

Do you mean since SSDs first started selling or say, Q3/Q4 of 2011? If it is the prior, then no doubt, Samsung is the winner.

However, I would very interested to see an updated Gartner report which breaks down SSDs units (OEM as well as retail sales) by manufacturer. Samsung may still very well end up on top in the OEM market, but it would be interesting to see if they still have a 35-50% market share as they did 3 to 4 yrs ago.

 

I'm very interested too - back in the early days, Samsung had a near monopoly in the OEM market and OEM SSDs were almost always Samsung SSDs. Nowadays, OEMs like Lenovo are very publicly advertising Intel's SSDs.

It'd be great to see if/how that visibility for Intel has translated into actual sales.