Kingston SSDNow V Series Solid State Drives

LeJimster · 4 Jun 2009 at 13:42

Personally I wouldn't bother with these drives, as you can get the 64GB Samsung's for £92 with a similar spec. The only advantage the Kingston offers is the 3 year warranty.

Zarf · 4 Jun 2009 at 13:56

nah, you get the 3.5" mounts too, which are worth ~£8. Kingston are a better deal considering the warranty and cloning software if it's the same performance.

Wizardskills · 4 Jun 2009 at 14:11

Zarf said:
nah, you get the 3.5" mounts too, which are worth ~£8. Kingston are a better deal considering the warranty and cloning software if it's the same performance.

Yep very true. Just looked up that software that you get with it and it is about £28 if it is Acronis True Image. That makes it a good deal in my books

Lanz · 4 Jun 2009 at 14:18

Why cant ocuk give us more tech spec about these drives if they are a launch partner.

What controller? How much buffer?

Failure to display such figures will hinder sales, as everything now has to wait for reviews.

Greebo · 4 Jun 2009 at 14:48

LeJimster said:
Personally I wouldn't bother with these drives, as you can get the 64GB Samsung's for £92 with a similar spec. The only advantage the Kingston offers is the 3 year warranty.

Can you? The old samsung ssd 64gb drives were only 57mb read and 32mb write and the new much faster ones are £149 :confused:

Ninja Please! · 4 Jun 2009 at 14:51

CSA said:
sorry for a dumb question but knowing absolutely nothing about SSD which will be faster one of these 64gb jobbies or a Western Digital VelociRaptor 150GB 10000RPM ?

Im looking for a fast drive just to put a few games on

ssd's will mop the floor with any velociraptor.

Greebo · 4 Jun 2009 at 14:52

wolvers69 said:
I thought that there was little or no benefit in RAID with SSD drives?

Just faster read and write speeds. Which as I have already said, makes little real world difference since it's only your os and a few programs you are going to have loaded up and it's the access time which makes all the difference (with a decentish read/write speed)

daztrouk · 4 Jun 2009 at 15:11

what is a decent read/write speed for system use with SSD's?

LeJimster · 4 Jun 2009 at 15:19

Greebo said:
Can you? The old samsung ssd 64gb drives were only 57mb read and 32mb write and the new much faster ones are £149

The really old ones were, but the ones I'm talking about are around 100MB read 80MB write.

wolvers · 4 Jun 2009 at 15:22

Greebo said:
Just faster read and write speeds. Which as I have already said, makes little real world difference since it's only your os and a few programs you are going to have loaded up and it's the access time which makes all the difference (with a decentish read/write speed)

Ta.

So, has anyone found a review for these yet?

CSA · 4 Jun 2009 at 16:05

Ninja Please! said:
ssd's will mop the floor with any velociraptor.

so while these may not be the fastest SSD's on the market, they are still way better than any other HDD for speed ?

John24 · 4 Jun 2009 at 18:54

Decent size for an OS drive
Adequate Read/Write speed for OS use, any less and performance will suffer and any more will be wasted.
Low access time which coupled with the adequate R/W speed makes it way way faster than any HD
3 year warranty
3.5" Adapter
VGood price

These are the reasons I`ll be buying a 64GB version for the family PC.

The Halk · 5 Jun 2009 at 03:35

CSA said:
so while these may not be the fastest SSD's on the market, they are still way better than any other HDD for speed ?

It's not possible to tell from the rated speeds. Maximum sequential speeds mean very little.

The Halk · 5 Jun 2009 at 03:37

Greebo said:
As already stated SSD drives are all about the access time so long as they have a reasonable read/write speed.

In a recent review of 8 SSD drives, windows boot time was only 1 sec slower (16 secs vs 15secs with the fastest ssd drive) with 90mb/sec ssd compared to a 200+mb/sec drive. However a 40mb/sec ssd drive was a full 9 secs slower.

In general use, you would hardly notice the difference in speed as the ssd drive would be so much quicker than your old sata hard drive anyway. You would start and notice the difference if you kept all your data on the ssd but with ssd drives so small it is unlikely that you will be using them as your main data storage. And even at 100mb read/80mb write it is up there with the fastest stat drives anyway.

Secondly at half the money, if the small drop in speed really bothered you, you could always get two and raid them. That way for the same money you would have the same read/write speeds but double the capacity.

You don't know what you're talking about. Two in RAID could be anything from twice as fast to 1/20th as fast as a Vertex.

FaceplantSi · 5 Jun 2009 at 06:41

I gotta add my bit and say that imo a RAID array is appreciably faster than a single drive. If people are going from HDD to a single SSD then the performance improvement is impressive, but adding another SSD or two makes things absolutely fly!

edit; Plus look at the newly released OCZ Agility series drives - speeds nearing Vertex territory but should be for a much lower price - interesting times ahead!

Perfect_Chaos · 5 Jun 2009 at 08:07

With so many new drives coming lately im not sure whether its a good time to buy yet, as with that prices are lowering..

but i will get no less than 128gb of space so either 1 drive or 2x 64gb.

5er driver · 5 Jun 2009 at 09:23

Perfect_Chaos said:
With so many new drives coming lately im not sure whether its a good time to buy yet, as with that prices are lowering..

I got mine just before the prices skyrocketed. If the prices come back down, I hope they don't go down to less than what I paid, otherwise I will feel **** upon.

Perfect_Chaos · 5 Jun 2009 at 09:26

5er driver said:
I got mine just before the prices skyrocketed. If the prices come back down, I hope they don't go down to less than what I paid, otherwise I will feel **** upon.

Then you will be sad to hear about the apparent price drops not too long from now, that is if it's true.

Greebo · 5 Jun 2009 at 09:42

The Halk said:
You don't know what you're talking about. Two in RAID could be anything from twice as fast to 1/20th as fast as a Vertex.

Explain? Do ssd raid differently to normal hard drives?

EvilOne · 5 Jun 2009 at 09:53

Greebo said:
It's almost like saying you can have a 4Ghz cpu for £100 or a 4.2Ghz cpu for £200 but no point buying the 4ghz cpu as it's slower.

£105 Kingston SSDNow V Series 64GB
- Read: Up to 100MB/sec
- Write: Up to 80MB/sec

£125 Vertex Series 30GB
- Read: Up to 200MB/sec
- Write: Up to 160MB/sec

Agree with you, i wouldnt pay double the price for a 0.2ghz cpu, but then again i wouldnt not pay £20 for potentially double read/write speed.

Greebo said:
EDIT: I have just noticed that for this money you could buy three of these 64gb drives and have 192gb and 300mb/sec read and 240mb/sec write for less money than a OCZ Vertex Series 120GB with 200mb/sec read and 160mb/sec write so if speed really does bother you (I still say its pretty irrelevant) then this would be a much better setup.

Why not compare it to OCZ Vertex in raid too?
2 30gb drives at 400mb/sec read 320mb/sec write for less £ then the cost of those 3 64gb drives. (192GB vs 60GB, so storage space diffrance is hugely in favor of the kingston). £315 vs £250.

I stand by my statment, these are good drives for storage space, but not if your just after read/write speeds. I wouldnt personly go SSD for storage so i would chose the quicker read/write option, not that both dont have a use.

I cant comment on the access time's of either drive as it doesnt say that on the ocuk spec's

Or am i totally missing something here? please correct me if im wrong as i dont know much about SSD drives, yet.

*****Kingston SSDNow V Series Solid State Drives*****

Kingston SSDNow V Series Solid State Drives