Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, morphine, Steel
EzioAs wrote:Sandisk SSD Plus 240GB because they're relatively cheap.
Thanks for any input.
JustAnEngineer wrote:
CScottG wrote:..if I was just getting one drive in a smaller size (256 GB or less) and sata III, I'd spend considerably more and get the Samsung 850 Pro. Not only does it have really fast 4k reads and writes (which is desired for the OS), but also because it has some of the largest cell-size NAND chips in use (similar to larger SLC NAND): which should (overall) result in enhanced longevity.
http://www.esaitech.com/samsung-mz-7ke2 ... aQodGroCIQ
HERETIC wrote:Rubbish as a boot drive-also avoid anything planer TLC and ram-less.
My first choice would be Samsung 850EVO.
If your budget won't stretch that far perhaps a Samsung 750EVO.
or most MLC should be OK...................................
For a boot drive aim for one that has at least 8000-4K IOPS at QD1
good luck
Yan wrote:It seems that you may have an older system. If so, keep in mind that your motherboard may support only SATA II (3 Gb/s) and not SATA III (6 Gb/s). You won't be able to profit fully from a fancy SSD. An SSD is still worthwhile, of course, but there's no point in paying more for features you can't use.
EzioAs wrote:CScottG wrote:..if I was just getting one drive in a smaller size (256 GB or less) and sata III, I'd spend considerably more and get the Samsung 850 Pro. Not only does it have really fast 4k reads and writes (which is desired for the OS), but also because it has some of the largest cell-size NAND chips in use (similar to larger SLC NAND): which should (overall) result in enhanced longevity.
http://www.esaitech.com/samsung-mz-7ke2 ... aQodGroCIQ
Hmm,thanks for the suggestion but it's way too expensive for me.
CScottG wrote:Ok, something more sensible then..
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B016NY7UUO/?tag=pcpapi-20
(..and if that's too much, give me your address so I can beat you over the head with a nerf bat! ..and with a running start no less.)
Notably beyond the price, it's an MLC drive (not TLC) AND it's a good 4k drive:
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7418/z ... ndex4.html
EzioAs wrote:CScottG wrote:Ok, something more sensible then..
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B016NY7UUO/?tag=pcpapi-20
(..and if that's too much, give me your address so I can beat you over the head with a nerf bat! ..and with a running start no less.)
Notably beyond the price, it's an MLC drive (not TLC) AND it's a good 4k drive:
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7418/z ... ndex4.html
Seems like a good suggestion. Too bad it's not available in a lot of online retailers in my country (Malaysia). The one that does have it on their listings shows the drive being sold out. Bummer. The price on the page seems pretty good for a 240 GB drive too
CScottG wrote:Oooh, I've always wanted to visit Malaysia!
EzioAs wrote:CScottG wrote:Oooh, I've always wanted to visit Malaysia!
You're really serious about hitting me with a bat then :o ? You won't find me so easily
EzioAs wrote:
Thanks for the knowledge. How about the other 2 on my initial post? The Intel SSD Pro 1500 series doesn't seem to bad, in my opinion. It's an old product, sure but I don't old as long as it's durable.
HERETIC wrote:EzioAs wrote:
Thanks for the knowledge. How about the other 2 on my initial post? The Intel SSD Pro 1500 series doesn't seem to bad, in my opinion. It's an old product, sure but I don't old as long as it's durable.
Intel has always had a good reputation for SSD's...but both those SSD's are really old,I'd be suspicious they might be second hand or refurbished.........
Sandforce and Intel 25nm Nand. The Nand is good even if a little slow,but I've never been a fan of Sandforce.......................................................
Aether wrote:I have had good luck with Crucial SSDs, and the latest TR System Guide is recommending Mushkin Reactor SSDs:
http://techreport.com/review/31389/the- ... -edition/5
JustAnEngineer wrote:
Vhalidictes wrote:Waco, while I agree with your post in-general, my understanding is that Windows background file operations depend on 4K write speeds and nothing else. Supposedly this makes the UI feel smoother since there isn't any background stalling.
How true that is, hell if I know. (All my system disks are either MX300's or Samsung EVOs - I don't have a SSD with crap write speeds to test with)
If anyone with knowledge of this could offer an opinion I'd be grateful.
CScottG wrote:It's just derived from files system's preferred cluster size, which in the case of NTFS is 4k.
EzioAs wrote:Hello,
I've been looking to get my first SSD (yes, I know it's 2017 already) and I'm looking into a SATA based SSD. Nothing too fancy, just a simple drive for Windows and non-game applications. I've been thinking of getting a 180GB drive but those are kinda scarce nowadays, so a 240/256GB drive should be good too if there are no good 180GB drives. So far, I've looked into the Intel Pro 1500 180GB, Intel 520 Series 180GB and Sandisk SSD Plus 240GB because they're relatively cheap. Of these 3, which would you recommend? If you have other suggestions, I highly welcome them.
Thanks for any input.
UberGerbil wrote:CScottG wrote:It's just derived from files system's preferred cluster size, which in the case of NTFS is 4k.
Just as importantly, the standard x86 page size is 4KB, which means anything that is demand-loaded (ie, all executables, memory-mapped files, etc) is loaded in 4KB chunks (which was one of the motivations to make the NTFS cluster size 4KB). The link you provided mentions this obliquely when talking about DLLs (which are demand-loaded executable code) though it talks about 4KB write speed, which I assume is a typo (executable code is read-only, so 4KB read performance is what matters).
If you're low enough on available physical memory that swapping to the page file is happening, that happens in 4KB chunks as well (obviously, since the page file contains pages and pages are 4KB). And while that isn't as much of an issue today, back in the days when machines didn't have a lot of physical memory and the page file got a lot of use (and especially when the page file was on a HDD), 4KB IOPS made a huge difference in the apparent smoothness of a system (all the more so since bits of the OS itself were getting swapped in and out in 4KB pages -- these days, much of the OS image is in Large/Huge pages and tends to stay resident).
Note that this doesn't mean that all file operations are done in individual 4KB increments -- the file system is generally smart enough (and the file APIs allow programs to specify) that contiguous parts of a file (be they data, executable, or whatever) get loaded as one operation, which is why defragmenting a hard drive mattered so much. With modern SSDs having such high sequential transfer rates (and being essentially immune to fragmentation at the file-system level), other factors come into play to make things less than instantaneous (decompression on the CPU, for example). But as always, the system is only as fast as its slowest aspect; sometimes that's getting the code (or data) that happens to be in that one page that isn't yet in memory, and that's where 4KB performance (particularly latency) still matters. (But only to a degree -- all modern SSDs are so fast that you're unlikely to notice much of a difference except in rather unusual / contrived cases).
Kougar wrote:For a budget drive I liked the $74 Adata SP550 It regularly gets some good sales on it. It uses an 8GB SLC fast write cache so it delivers surprisingly good performance for a cheap budget drive. I used to not be a fan of cache SSDs, but considering everything budget is TLC anyway I'm coming around to them. For casual users the 8GB cache is never going to be exceeded.
cphite wrote:I like Samsung but it's more of a "that's what I'm used to" thing... Crucial are good too.
Frankly, if I am reading you right and you're just looking for a basic Windows machine without gaming or other "performance" sorts of things, any of the three you have listed there should be fine. Pick the best price you can find. All three will blow away your current HDD, and all three should last reasonably long.
As someone else mentioned, make sure to find out what your current hardware will actually support... there is no point in paying for higher speed in a drive if your machine can't actually take advantage of it.