TR Forums

Hi all. I'm putting together a system for the first time and have decided to get an SSD for Windows and a couple of games. Right now I've narrowed my options down to these three:

Samsung 830 64GB
http://www.microcenter.com/single_produ ... id=0379186

Corsair Force GT 90GB
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820233205

OCZ Petrol 128GB
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820227780

Right now I'm leaning towards either the Samsung or the Corsair. They wind up costing the same after rebate (as do all of these), and the Force GT is bigger, but the reports about SandForce and BSOD bugs and such are make me nervous. The Petrol is the largest, but also the slowest, and from what I've heard OCZ simply does not have a good reputation with SSDs (even with this one being an Indilinx controller instead of SF).

What do you think?

64GB is going to be too small to install a "couple of games" on. The OCZ petrol doesnt look like it has good specs. (I've actually never heard of it before)

Buy the 120GB Force GT. Its on sale at newegg right now for $150 (only $30 more than your 90gb variant) You won't be dissapointed. $150 is the best price that drive has been at since June 2011. The sandforce BSOD bug was "fixed" back in November 2011. There have been MUCH less complaints since that time. I've bought 2 sandforce ssds (OCZ Vertex 3 and Corsair Force 3) since then and haven't had any problems with either.

The Petrol is an Indilinx-based SSD. Its performance is not up to par with the front runners (intel 510, samsung 830, crucial M4, sandforce 2200), but it's decent (Take the Octane, and drop ~5-10% performace for not using synchronous NAND). Not a bad choice, but there are better options if you shop around.

Just as a reference, I've got a 120GB Vertex 3 on my gaming machine. Its got the standard stuff (MS Office, etc) and 2 games (Crysis 3 and CoD MW2) both 12ish GB and I've used 65GB of space.(My documents, music, pictures, movies, etc are on a hdd) Also, remember overprovisioning, my 120GB ssd only has 111GB of usable space (7.5% overprovisioning). I always recommend getting AT LEAST a 90GB ssd, both for performance and capacity on a main system. 120GB gives you a little bit more breathing room so you dont have to worry about space management in the future.

Right, so what's the difference between the Vertex 3 and Agility 3? I'm guessing one of them uses synchronous NAND and the other asynchronous?

I found what looks like a pretty decent deal on this one:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820227726

Although $130 ($160 before MIR) is about the highest I could go on an SSD. In a perfect world just get a 120GB Samsung or Force GT/3, but as a college student I'm running on a pretty strict budget for this. Even with Newegg's current sale on the latter it's out of my range.

Yes, synch versus asynch NAND.

The difference in non-synthetic real-world use is more significant with a 6Gbps SATA port (which may matter if you plan to keep it past your current platform, if that platform only has 3Gbps):

3Gbps comparison: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/372?vs=351
6Gbps comparison: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/371?vs=350

But if that's as high as you can go pricewise, go for it, the Agility 3 is still one of the faster SSDs and any current SSD will crush a mechanical drive and not have downsides like some early SSDs. The Agility 3 still benefits from a 6Gbps port anyway so if you do use it in a system with a 6Gpbs port you'll still be taking advantage of the faster port.

Well, after similar research I decided to go with Intel, works like a charm, and they have a reputation of being the most reliable. Although it seems SSDs are as reliable as mechanical drives nowadays.

Anything below $1.25/GB is a good deal for an ssd as far as I'm concerned. With the Agility 3 (as MMO linked) the asynchronous NAND flash will lose some performance in incompressible reads and writes compared to a sandforce ssd with synchronous NAND like the Vertex 3 or Force GT. At the end of the day, it probably doesn't equate into much difference in the real world.
I would go for the Agility 3, not necessarily because its a better deal compared to the Force GT 120GB, but because its still a very good deal and within your price range. If you need a more "professional" opinion, TR nearly recommended the Agility 3 in this article had it not been $13 more than the Corsair Force 3 at the time of publication.

Right, I'm actually thinking of dropping down from a Carbide 400R to a Fractal Design Core 3000 and using the money saved to grab the 120GB version of the Force GT; otherwise I'll just stick with the original case and get the Agility 3. Still another week or two before I'll have the opportunity to actually put it together, so maybe I'll get lucky and there'll be a sale pointing me in one direction or the other.

Thank you for your help, everybody.

DPete27 wrote:

Anything below $1.25/GB is a good deal for an ssd as far as I'm concerned. With the Agility 3 (as MMO linked) the asynchronous NAND flash will lose some performance in incompressible reads and writes compared to a sandforce ssd with synchronous NAND like the Vertex 3 or Force GT. At the end of the day, it probably doesn't equate into much difference in the real world.
I would go for the Agility 3, not necessarily because its a better deal compared to the Force GT 120GB, but because its still a very good deal and within your price range. If you need a more "professional" opinion, TR nearly recommended the Agility 3 in this article had it not been $13 more than the Corsair Force 3 at the time of publication.

It doesn't mean anything in the real world.

I went from a pair of Indilinx drives (essentially first-gen Vertex drives) to a pair of Vertex 3s and the difference in real use is literally zero. Sure, I get crazy high benchmark scores now, but the difference in terms of loading times, boot times, etc is, for all intents and purposes, nothing.

I'd go with the Agility 3 if I did it all over again (or any of the equivalent Sandforce drives with asynchronous Flash).

TheWacoKid wrote:

I'd go with the Agility 3 if I did it all over again (or any of the equivalent Sandforce drives with asynchronous Flash).

I tend to agree with WacoKid on that one. I actually bought a 120GB Vertex 3 MAX IOPS for $190 because it was the best of the best (I have a weakness for that kind of thing). In terms of real world load times, boot times, etc I would agree that in all reality it performs the same as my Corsair Force 3 90GB (using Asynchronous NAND). Basically, Synchronous NAND is better, but probably not worth the extra money if you're not a "power user."

However, with the current deal on the Force GT as opposed to the Agility 3, the difference is only $20 after MIR. I would just splurge for the Force GT in that case. (But that's just me, refer to my "weakness") My $190 max iops versus a $130 Agility 3? No question, I should have gotten the Agility 3 instead and saved the $60. (Or even saved $40 for the regular Vertex 3 or Force GT which represents an even more miniscule performance difference)