what ssd is best?

The best consumer level SSD is this one hands down MyDigitalSSD 128GB 2.5" SuperSSpeed SATA III (6G) SLC SandForce SSD - SSSFM73A1QS1128G. Weather or not it fits your application and budget is another question.

 

While I have no doubt that this is a consumer level SSD as not many Enterprise customers would consider it, this is not a consumer SSD because of it's SLC nand and it's un-usably (small) capacity for modern workloads - not to mention it's price - even with a 50% discount.

Sure; it's the best performing SSD. (period).

But it is far from the question posted 'what ssd is best'.

Would you have any SLC 240GB and larger SSD's on offer for us?

 

sorry but never heard of them. time to do some research me thinks.

alternatively your more than welcome to send me a drive to test out

 

@MrDJ
Difference between 840 and 840 PRO is NAND used - first use TLC (tripple level cell) and the latter use MLC (two bits per cell). Less bits per cell means - less time to program such cell - and longer lifetime, due to lower voltage needed to program it (well literally less diffrent levels of voltages are used). 830 used 27nm and 840 is using 20nm node process - and it is opposite to CPU/GPU - if we lower process, then such NAND last shorter than made in higher process node (in other words, when cell is larger physically it will last longer). In this perspective Intel 320 used even better 34nm node (and also only storing two bit per cell) and older X25-M had even larger 50nm proces node. If we take out of equation progress that happened in developing SSD controlers, then it is always better to have NAND produced in 34nm not 20nm - but it will cost (both smaller sizes SSDs and higher price). Best of two worlds would be 'todays' SSD controlers connected to 2yrs old (50nm) NAND . Even then ... who need like more than 10 PB of writes ?! In regular PC? Normal use generate 5- 20GB writes per day - that gives only 7,5 TB writes per year! Writing 256GB Samsung everyday fullly (256GB) summs to 94TB of writes after year. We know now that 830 256GB can survive 5PB ! Thats a lot! But more importantly it sustain writes near 100-140MB/s till end of life, when others SSDs surpassing their Media Wear Indicator (when user looong time ago was informed by SMART alerts) will produce some like 80MB/s writes. That is why Intel and Samsung have some really positive response. Crucial had some small issues, Marvell wasn't that solid as Intel own controler or samsung 3 core ARM controler. There is more little 'pluses' and this is changing with time, other manufacturers do start to appreciate solid validation and this will be priority for next products. That's for sure.

 

thanks Chris for the explanation.

 

Thanks so much Chris for the evaluated explanation
I think the samsung 840 pro series is one of the best. I am using it and its great.

 

Chris_ast1, that is a pretty good explanation between the TLC based 840 and the MLC based 840 PRO.

Just a small refinement though: I would want today's controllers coupled with 50nm nand too - but not yesteryear's nand offerings - those were slow examples vs. the fast nand chips we can get today.

Built with today's tech (400Mb/s+ chips) and huge (old time) process nodes - single SSD's could not only be saturating SATA3 pipelines - but also the upcoming SATA Express standard (1-2 GB/s...) too - SUSTAINED SPEEDS. Who would need SLC anymore?

But I wouldn't want to be paying $$$$ for these monsters or seeing their power requirements either (I don't think they would work in a notebook platform).

'Progress' is always a two steps forward and one step back kind of journey - make sure that your upgrade plans align for this yin and yang that repeats itself indefinitely.

 

@tilleroftheearth

Yes, I agree, I didn't mentioned ONFI standards for NAND to not bring even more confusion ... and Yes, wide adpotion and mass production of SSDs as a side effect of lower node process is crucial for this market to evolve.

As to 840 PRO, I'm just surprised by its low power usage! Hope that all chipsets will detect it when coming "out of sleep" and etc. conditions. In some aspects 840 PRO is "to good to be true" .

 

I`d love to have 2 of the 840 PROs in Raid0 . Too bad I only have 1 SATA3 port.

This is 128GB PROs in Raid0 btw, 256GB is even faster.

 

Cloudfire - you're a benchmark junkie.

Empty SSD's in dodgy setups (RAID0) will give high 'scores' - but count your lucky stars that you can't do this to yourself...

Note that low 4K R read? It will quickly deteriorate even further in actual use to 'feel' like a single SSD (and slower and slower as time goes on... unless you have the 10.6 OROM RAID version in your BIOS and Intel RST 11.7 or higher IRST drivers... and, you're lucky enough that you move to a new setup before one drive hiccups and takes out your RAID and high 'scores' with it... ).

 

Guilty as charged
Yeah I completely agree on the Raid0 possible issues. One drive dead and you lose all your files. But its tempting when you see numbers like that lol

Anyhow that 4K isn`t low. Read is like the single 840 but that 4K read, at first I thought it was some error since its a lot more than 2x single 840

Here is single (as empty SSD)

 

Speaking about benchies...

Sandforce based SSDs performances receive significant drops when compared with current top end non-sandforce counterparts in writing when incompressible data is taken into the picture.

In real world scenarios, many people are exposed to incompressible files.

Still favouring the 840 pro over 520, imo.

 

Yes it is definitely aimed at the utilitarian power user CAD, AI, HD Video Editing.... Still it would make a great boot drive with enough room for some programs and games.

I am looking into the 256GB question and will reply shortly.

MyDigitalSSD

 

Sandforce based drives do not do as well with incompressible data
Imagine a real setting.. where the there's a mix of incompressible and compressible data in any drive. Sandforce is effective and has much higher write speed. The only time you can face an issue with read/write
performance is when the drive is nearly full to its capacity withincompressible data. That happens with other drives too.. right?

 

True, performance dives with any storage subsystem as it gets used to closer and closer to 100% capacity (with SSD's anything over 30% filled and I can see/feel the drive slowing down - during Windows and program install/updates, for example).

Incompressible vs. compressible not really relevant except that SF as noted really takes a dive in speed with incompressible files (still, if it stays at rated speeds - still faster overall than a HDD).

What is relevant is to use over-provisioning to prevent these drastic slowdowns - and to get a drive that is the least susceptible to these slowdowns in the first place.

Yeah: consistency is what I'm talking about again - not a fan of 'Wow! Feel the speed' and 'Whoa! Who slammed on the brakes' - especially if the performance with the brakes on is slower (overall...) than the HDD it is supposedly superior to and I have paid a premium to have replaced.


Consistency is the name of the game for SSD's in 2013 - I think/hope the new Crucial M500 will be the new king for price, performance, consistency and capacity.

See:
AnandTech - Micron/Crucial Announces M500 SSD Line of SSDs




I'm trying to control myself and wait for the Anandtech report on these drives before I pre-order a few 480GB and 960GB versions...