Which SSD is better?

Kingston SSDNow V300 240GB
ADATA SP600 256GB 2.5"
Crucial M500 240GB

I am looking to replace my laptop HDD with an ssd and am looking into one of these three. I will be storing most files on an external drive while this will be mainly for OS, programs and video editing files. Which of these three would be better to purchase (All will be going on sale for $100)?

Thanks in Advance!

 

I would not touch that Kingston SSD with a 30 foot pole, and Kingston is permanently on my "do not buy" list. Read for yourself why

No idea about the ADATA, but the Crucial M500 is a good choice for a budget SSD.

 

Agreed. Of those choices, go with the crucial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

+ 1 and then some...

 

Hey thanks for your answers!

I am on strict budget after buying my laptop so do you think I may be able to purchase any of these at lower than a $100? Or is this a really good deal(in Canada)? Other wise I'm probably gonna go with the crucial.

 

Crucial is your best bet.. If you can get the M550, its new then the 500 and slightly better... It's also slightly quicker..

 

Last question

How does the sandisk ultra 2 stack up to the crucial m500?

SanDisk Ultra II Solid State Drives (SSD)

Thanks!

 

SanDisk Ultra II is a better performer.

 

Stay away from TLC drives.. They're junk.. I'd get the Crucial or if you want some proper MLC memory, get the Sandisk Extreme II/Pro...

 

Actually the MX100 is the intended replacement for the Crucial M500. M550 is the 'premium' series.

 

What about the kingston hyper x Fury its a update to the v300 right?

 

SandForce junk...best left alone....

 

Avoid anything SandForce-based, not only because of lower reliability (compared to non-SF drives) but also because the posted benchmarks are a lie (Seq. Write is crippled when you work with uncompressable data; my Intel 330 advertises something like 400-500MB/s write but I actually get ~150MB/s, even with the latest firmware).

 

Kingston SSDs use the crappy SandForce controller which can only achieve the advertised speeds when it deals with compressed data. That's why on the box of my previous Kingston HyperX 3K SSD it said "These results were achieved with ATTO Disk Benchmark" because it uses compressed data. But in the real world, I was getting around 170MB Read/Write, no where near the advertised speeds. I would never use a Kingston SSD even if you paid me.

upgrading from ANY HDD to even the slowest SSD would be a night and day difference. ANY SSD will blow an HDD out of the water. But when comparing these crappy Kingston SSDs with the high performers such as Samsung840/850 PRO or SandDisk Extreme II / SanDisk Extreme PRO / Crucial M550/Crucial MX100 they would leave the Kingstons in the dust.

you never know how much faster it would be until you try it

Just my 2 cents worth

 

Just stay away from Kingston drives. :thumbsup: Kingston HyperX Fury 240GB SSD Review

 

Is the sandisk ultra 2 480gb priced at $164 a good deal?

 

Doesnt have a SF controller, though it has TLC NAND. Personally I havent had issues with it, though some would poikt out that likely it wont last as long as MLC NAND. However, TLC shoukd at least last you for the life of the laptop (bedore upgrading to another laptop)

 

I'd be more afraid of issues that affected Samsung's TLC-based drives...massive slowdowns when reading old files and such.

My approach has always been to spend a bit more and get a higher-end product, but to each their own.

 

I'd just avoid Kingston entirely at this point...

 

I had not bought it, then it's not so big price difference for a better (Newer) quality. One of the few ssd as it is worth and buying is Samsung 840 / 850 PRO, SanDisk Extreme PRO og Crucial M550 / Crucial MX100. All ssd brand disks may fail, but there is a big security just that they use mlc nand. I also have two pcs OCZ Vector 256GB SSD that have worked brilliant since they were launched (bought two pieces when they came New for sale) Some also complain about the brand OCZ but I am very happy with the quality. Should I buy new ssd drives the only Choice is between Samsung 850 PRO / SanDisk Extreme PRO interesting. I have among others a Samsung 850 Pro, but is not afraid and choose Sandisk. only wish OCZ had come with a new ultra-fast SSD disk with mlc nand.

 

Personally, I've been looking for an excuse to test Vector 150...since I did like OCZ's non-SandForce offerings in the past and had excellent experiences with them...

 

Just received my 850 PRO 1TB which I will use to store my drivers, software installation setup EXEs, training material

on the mSATA 840 EVO 1 TB, I store the docs, music, pics, videos

and the OS + game installations go on the 850 PRO 256GB

the best setup for me

 

I'd suggest the Sandisk Extreme II/Extreme Pro as they have MLC memory and excellent performance!

 

Both these ssd drives are very good, but why choose previous generation Sandisk SSD as it is not a very big price difference.

 

I doubt it make much of a difference in practical terms.

 

This.

Will you all relax.

As the OP mentioned

The most important thing is to get a decent SSD with a good price, give or take 50MB/s speeds on top of the actual speeds contrary to the advertised speeds.

You all speak like the difference is noticeable when dealing with a Windows OS and editing software (talking about seconds, maybe a few minutes of extra savings when processing videos).

But in strictly technical terms you are right guys

 

I'm glad I sprung for the SanDisk this time round. Just popped in the Extreme Pro 960GB SSD and MY WORD is this thing snappy. I was actually half expecting a tad less snap than my 840 Pro since the SanDisk Extreme II felt just ever so slightly lethargic, but this Extreme Pro is positively more snappy than even the 840 Evo 1TB. Booting is now 2 seconds faster, and the system just feels responsive in general. Coupled with unrivaled consistency this thing is going to be a real keeper. :thumbsup:

 

If I pay $ 30-40 extra for a quality SSD that I will use as a windows disk, does not matter. You often pay a little extra for a ssd disk with long warranty (5 years +). This prevents Garbage as tlc memory. = cheap ssd ...

 

Don't say that, I just bought a 250GB 840 Evo! ;-) It only matters if you really hammer them with writes though right? I don't write to it intensively so I'm expecting life expectancy to be a non-issue.

EDIT: upgraded the firmware to the latest version that prevents deterioration of read speed on old data - you have to run a program called "Samsung SSD 840 EVO Performance Restoration Software" which installs the latest firmware & applies the fix, this firmware is not downloadable as a seperate firmware (so don't just download the latest firmware from Samsung - run this program instead). This issue is now fixed on these drives apparently.

 

Here's one fun thing to try (assuming you have a boatload of programs installed): Open up "Programs and Features" in Control Panel and see how fast the icons load.

I can tell you right now with both the 840 Pro and 840 Evo the icons would load one by one, not exactly slow-mo, but definitely not instantaneous. With the Extreme Pro the icons still take a fraction of second to appear when I start scrolling the list, but they all appear at once, no more of that load-one-by-one deal. And the icons do load faster than they did on the 840 Pro or 840 Evo.

Wonder if this is somehow related to consistency.

 

Hi
According Ferris he got the same problem back with Evo ssd, although he used the fix from Samsung and upgraded the firmware to the latest version (that Preventer deterioration of read speed on old data)

 

I did your test, the icons load instantly as soon as the new page of programs is displayed. You can just about tell that it's loading the icons from top to bottom, but barely, if you weren't paying attention it would just look like they all appear at the same time, and even when paying attention you can barely tell it's loading from top to bottom.

 

So, you're saying the fix didn't help him?

 

I think so. Ask him.

 

Cheers, I might do that, I'll also check read performance of the SSD in a few months using that special tool created by forum members that specifically checks for the read performance of old data written to the drive. So far performance seems good.

 

As far as I know, the "performance restoration tool" needs to be run periodically.

I don't own one so can't say for sure, however that's my understanding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Thanks for the input; when I looked into it my conclusion was that it only needed to be ran once. The tool re-organises the previously written data, and also updates the firmware so that all data written after that point is 'organised'/'optimised', so my understanding was that it is a one stop only fix.

 

If you must run Samsung's "performance ( perverse) restoration tool" periodically then this is even more perverse than just and run the tool one time .. Nobody wants such a solution. Nobody knows nor how these Evo disks works about 2-3 years. Samsung also have this error on older ssd drives that have not been fixed yet. Anyway, this is not a solution I would tolerated, I would thrown this ssd drive in the toilet.

Edit: Robbo have you talked with Ferris?

 

I'm not sure about that. If the issue is with old data, the tool likely reads and rewrites that data to "freshen" it - no reason to believe the issue won't recur when the data is old again. Also note that running the tool likely reduces the overall life of the drive by requiring additional writes to the drive (much like write amplification).

Only way to see who is right is run the tool once and wait months to see if the issue resurfaces. I'm not gonna volunteer for that task, I'll just avoid Samsung SSDs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I would in any case not had old data files that are not so much in use on an Evo or any ssd with tlc nand (or a cheap cheap ssd disk). I'm not afraid of my files on a Samsung Pro or my OCZ vector.

 

That may be the case for you, however you're probably in the minority there. I'd expect robbo9999 and most other users would have old data as well as new fresh data on their drive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I have a Mx100 256gig drive and so far it has worked well-I might upgrade next year to a 512gig mx100 if budget permits but so far as my main boot drive 256gig has suffice so far and still have plenty of space left.

 

It's okay with cheap disks but they shall not contain tlc nand .. only msc nand.

 

Super happy with my 256 gig M4. I have an mx100 but it's seen basically zero use. The machine it was going into needs a new mobo I think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well, supposedly the tool freshens the old data, and then the new firmware that the tool applies is supposed to prevent newly written data from that point onwards developing the slow read problem. From what I read this isn't achieved by re-writing old data constantly, so supposedly write amplification is not affected.

Yep, I talked with Ferris, he said that performance deteriorated again - I still remain optimistic, but I'll test it in a few months & if I remember I'll report back here.

 

I upgraded from a 64GB M4, I was very happy with it, just the capacity was too small, those M4 drives were a good choice.

 

Nice that you got talked about the problem with Ferris. Hope you do not get the same problem that Ferris had. I see that there is a price difference of just under £ 39 between a Samsung 256GB Evo and 840 Pro. This price difference is not huge. A SanDisk Extreme II 240GB costs just £ 19 more expensive than an Evo ssd, which is a better ssd disk. One is not forced to buy an Evo ssd, then one can find a better ssd for almost the same price.

 

Yes, if I'd waited until Black Friday I could have gotten a Sandisk Extreme Pro 256GB (think that was the name) for the same price! I am happy with this SSD though, as long as it doesn't go slow on me - we will see!

 

I have shopped Nero Platinum 2015 software at a cheap price on black friday now at a price of $ 34.99. Normal price was $ 110. It is possible and buy cheap.

 

Just a quick update regarding 840 Evo read speed degredation with old data, here's my current read speed after 2 weeks of OS installation, I'll check back in a couple of weeks:

C: OS Partition:


F: Games Partition:


Looks good so far, no issues.

Update 9th Dec (at 3 weeks):
No degredation in read performance after almost one week since last measurement (will test every week over a month or two):

C: OS Partition:


F: Games Partition:


Update 16th Dec (at 4 weeks):
OS Partition slowed down by 10MB/s, hopefully not indicative of it slowing more in the future, but could just be natural variation from test to test given the variation seen in the last 3 tests; games partition still running at previous speed though. Will test again in a month.

C: OS Partition:


F: Games Partition: