Which SSD on my 1st build?

Help guys to those who are experts on SSD. I never had a PC with SSD so in my 1st build, I will try to install OS on a dedicated SSD. Right now I am stuck wtih two brands in my head. It's between Samsung and Kingston. Why? Because these are two brands that has the cheapest 120GB SSD right here in my area.

So should I get this Kingston SSDNow V+ 200 120GB which has read/write speed(max) of up to 535MBs/480MBs compared to Samsung 840 Series 120GB which has read/write speed(max) of up to 530MBs /130MBs. I have Samsung in my mind but is it a wise decision? Should I look for other brands too like WD or Seagate?

Thank you.

 

I would not get too hung up on manf. specs for speed. Between those 2 options Samsung 840 is the better choice. Most here recommend Intel, Crucial or Samsung in no particular order. What are you looking to spend?
Amazon.com: Samsung Electronics 840 Pro Series 2.5-Inch 128 SATA_6_0_gb Solid State Drive MZ-7PD128BW: Computers & Accessories
(I assume you wil be using a secondary drive for storage of data files or I would recommend a larger SSD)

 

Yes Samsung 840 is really my 1st choice. And yes again I have a 1TB WD HD for data. This SSD will just be dedicated for my OS. Having different brands for HDD and SSD would not matter right?

 

I have never run into an issue with using mixed manufacturers, Just to be clear are we talking about a laptop in this case (no pun) ?

 

No we are talking about a desktop here.

 

Since you are on the Desktop, you can completely throw power efficiency out the window and go for max performance. In this respect, we're looking at a variety of SSD classes, I would avoid that Kingston SSD at all costs, I've seen whole forum threads with hundreds of posts dedicated to finding solutions to its many problems. Likewise, that Samsung 120gb drive isn't ideal either since its only marginally faster than HDDs circa 2008 at Sequential write.

The most important SSD performance criteria we're looking at are as follows:
1. Sequential Read/Write speed
2. Random Read/Write with QD1
3. Performance Consistency

1. Most large capacity SSDs will excel with this criteria but the strongest to date has been the OCZ Vector. While it isn't quite as fast as the Samsung 840 pro at reading, it is significantly faster at writing. An honorable mention is the Crucial M500 960gb.

2. This metric is mostly mixed as it is impossible to fully optimize this without compromising other areas. This metric determines the speed of the Windows boot time (Random Read) but it also contributes to the snappiness of the UI (Random Read+ Random Write) e.g. how fast menus pop up etc. Samsung 840 pros are the fastest at Random Read but it loses significantly to the Vector and Intel 520 at Random Write.

3. This is a distinctly different metric to all others. Its basically how an SSD can reproduce a certain degree of snappiness without latency spikes. e.g. The 840 Pros tend to allow menus to pop up really fast but you also get the odd menu that lags before popping up. All SSDs can improve this metric by allocating more space free for over provisioning but obviously this means you lose more useful capacity. The Intel Sandforce implementation is possibly one of the most solid in this aspect though the clear winner is anything based on the LAMD controller (e.g. Neutron, Neutron GTX or Seagate 600) as they can maintain an almost flat consistency curve even when filled to the brim with data.

Basically, you decide what is important to you as a desktop user. For Example, my setup is a bit extreme but it gives you an idea:
To me, I prefer snappiness, fast sequential read, capacity and boot speed which cannot be achieved by 1 SSD + Conventional HDD. So I have a multi-tiered solution.
I have a 256gb Plextor M5S as the boot which has some of the fastest Random Read speeds, it is also left mostly empty and with 30% overprovisioned to allow optimal snappiness. I also have a 500gb Samsung 840 which stores all my Steam games and allows them to load really fast due to the 520mb/s read speed, I didn't care too much about how fast games install (the weak 840 write speed) so I didn't spend extra money than necessary nor do I need to overprovision as snappiness is unimportant in a storage SSD. I also have a pair of WD Blue 1tb in RAID 0 to act as a longer term storage for my stuff and backs up all the stuff in the 840 drive, the fast sequential speed allows me to transfer data very quickly to either the Storage 840 or the Plextor M5s should I need it. Finally, I have an Enterprise WD RE3 1tb that acts as final tier storage as it backs up all the data on the RAID0 array daily.

Moral of the Story: avoid budget SSDs, you will regret it dearly later

 

SSDs' performance are actually relatively close to each other (with the exception of a handful of crap SSDs that are slower than HDDs for certain laptops).

I'd suggest getting the SSD with the lowest price per GB. A cheap 240 GB SSD is going to outdo a high performance 120 GB SSD in the long run (for normal consumer usages). Eventually for the 120 GB SSD, some of the programs/files will have to be loaded from the considerably slower HDD. Not so for the 240 GB SSD, since you have more storage room to play with before having to heavily resort to the HDD.

Also, sequential performance is not really that important with the exception of video/photo rendering. A HDD still offers sufficient sequential performance for its price.

 

Thanks guys for some additional information on choosing an SSD. Well I haev already purchased the Samsung 840 Pro 128 GB yesterday. Thank you!

 

tosaytheleast , only a question. Your pc is sata3 compatible?