TR Forums

Hi all,
I am building a new system. The planned components are
1. Ryzen 5 2400G
2. ASRock A320M Pro4
3. Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000Mhz
4. Seagate Barracuda 2TB HDD
5. Corsair SF450 PSU

I am confused between selecting one of the 250 GB Samsung SSD'S.

Should I go with the new 960 Evo NVME or with the older 860 Evo with Rapid?

suku_patel_22 wrote:

Hi all,
I am building a new system. The planned components are
1. Ryzen 5 2400G
2. ASRock A320M Pro4
3. Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000Mhz
4. Seagate Barracuda 2TB HDD
5. Corsair SF450 PSU

I am confused between selecting one of the 250 GB Samsung SSD'S.

Should I go with the new 960 Evo NVME or with the older 860 Evo with Rapid?

Are you running anything,or likely to that can use the extra speed?
Do you have or likely to have,anything external,that can use those speeds?
If so then get the 960,and i'd recommend going up to 500GB.

If not pick the 860,you'll hardly notice the difference....................
good luck

Unless you have a specific workload that needs very fast storage, you should go with the cheaper one. For the vast majority of desktop workloads, there's basically no difference in practical speed between a mid-range SATA SSD and the fastest stuff on the market.

Nobody should buy both for general purpose and gaming use, they are terrible in GB/$ terms and NVMe won't matter. The MX500 is better in every way, and the 2TB Micron 1100 which is just as fast in real world terms as any other drive mentioned is even better if you find it at $250 which is like over 2x the GB/$ of the 860 Evo and over 3x of the 960 Evo.

The Samsungs offer bad value now.

I think HP EX920 had better practical benchmarks due to good low-depth queue speeds. So HP EX920 is better than the 960 Evo and cheaper to boot. The 860 Evo is just too expensive for a budget SATA drive. get an Crucial MX500 instead, or a budget M.2 drive like the Mushkin Pilot.

You guys could at least answer the question he/she asked. I understand what you're trying to do, but you know how buying PC parts is. You want what you want sometimes.

synthtel2 wrote:

Unless you have a specific workload that needs very fast storage, you should go with the cheaper one. For the vast majority of desktop workloads, there's basically no difference in practical speed between a mid-range SATA SSD and the fastest stuff on the market.

I agree with this.