SSD options

P4Clock

P4Clock

P4Clock

Permabanned
Joined
6 Feb 2010
Posts
6,138
Location
Barnsley
if i want to spend £120 on an ssd do i spend £120 on a 240gb ssd and call it done or do i spend £60 of two 120gb ssd's and raid it up?
 
P4Clock said:
faster option for just a little more cash. so... SO NOT DONE :p

also the MX's will be dropping a lot on price so dont buy now wait.
Click to expand...

a lot? I don't think so.

what is it that you do that you want to pay extra for speed increase that you won't be able to notice?
 
RAIDing SSDs is pointless (performance increases are only seen in benchmarks, not in real-life usage), increases boot times significantly, doubles the risk of losing your data, makes it harder to update the firmware on the SSDs, the list goes on. The MX100 is an amazing SSD, and has come in at an extremely aggressive price, it will not be dropping significantly in the next six months.
 
kefan77 said:
spend 75 on 256gb mx100.

done.
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem like a good deal when the 840 EVO 250GB is only a tenner more, and is a fair bit faster.

In fact is there any good reason not to buy an EVO right now? I'm hesitating about pulling the trigger :p
 
rotor said:
In real world usage, the MX100 seems quite a bit quicker than the EVO. In raw benchmarks it's not always faster, but real world is where it's at (i.e. the firmware is very cleverly tuned for real world performance).

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8066/crucial-mx100-256gb-512gb-review/4
Click to expand...

Trouble is, Anand's results seem to contradict everyone else's. I'm not sure I trust Anand at all.

They have the 840 PRO near the bottom, and everybody else reckons the 840 PRO is just about the fastest consumer drive there is!
 
Personally, and I mean personally, I would not pay any more than 33p per GB on any SSD. All SSD's that I have seen and tested myself perform as well as each other in real terms.

So about £80 for a 240GB drive is reasonable, the rest is down to user preference. The prices on some drives are ridiculous for little or no gain and price pressure should be adopted, buy on offer or at reduced price.
 
Because Anandtech is one of the very few to have a real world usage benchmark! Basically, they take a PC, record every single I/O (read and write) over a period of several hours, where they launch a number of intensive apps, perform a series of tasks with them, and then these recorded I/Os are played back on each SSD that they benchmark. It's pretty cool, but isn't rocket science. The 500GB MX100 beats the 500GB EVO, but doesn't beat the 750GB or 1TB EVOs (because they have more channels, therefore higher speed). But I bet you that the 1TB MX100 will beat the 1TB EVO (Anandtech haven't benchmarked a 1TB MX100 yet).

The vast majority of benchmark sites do a pretty basic job, using only off the shelf tools like ATTO and CrystalDiskMark. In my opinion, in direct contrast to what you are saying, Anandtech is one of the most trusted sources of SSD benchmarks.

Here is an excerpt from the explanation of their Storage Bench 2013:

Everything about this new test is bigger and better. The test platform moves to Windows 8 Pro x64. The workload is far more realistic. Just as before, this is an application trace based test - I record all IO requests made to a test system, then play them back on the drive I'm measuring and run statistical analysis on the drive's responses.

Imitating most modern benchmarks I crafted the Destroyer out of a series of scenarios. For this benchmark I focused heavily on Photo editing, Gaming, Virtualization, General Productivity, Video Playback and Application Development. Rough descriptions of the various scenarios are in the table below:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6884/crucial-micron-m500-review-960gb-480gb-240gb-120gb/4
 
Well I've just asked Flubit what price it can get me for a 256GB MX100. If it's £65 or so like other people have got, I'll grab one. The extra money for the EVO is actually more like £20 or £25.

Just a shame that the 256 GB MX is sooo much slower than the 512 GB version on writes.
 
comes down to price,the Samsung is faster out the crucial/Samsung drives

would you notice? doubt it

also depends how well the crucials controller is at maintaining the drive,samsungs is flawless

the larger the capacity the faster the drive,thats just down to more nand chips they use per drive,the more the faster
 
prices are coming down whatever retailers say.

for eg mx512 launched 160

week later 150

certain olace 145

so yes they will be cheaper and are getting nicely priced :)
 
Picked up the MX100 for £66. Can't really argue at that price.

The 128GB Kingston was full after a couple Steam installs, and also several hundred MB/s slower :p
 
I am going to be testing a bunch of SSD's and the new M.2 SSD drives on a Bench rig we have just set up so we get consistent results. Also we will test them as an OS drive and also as an extra drive. I will be creating a thread on here soon. I will be testing the MX100's compared to the EVO's on here as well.
 
abarrass said:
I am going to be testing a bunch of SSD's and the new M.2 SSD drives on a Bench rig we have just set up so we get consistent results. Also we will test them as an OS drive and also as an extra drive. I will be creating a thread on here soon. I will be testing the MX100's compared to the EVO's on here as well.
Click to expand...

Link me plz when you make the thread
 
That sounds great! I am considering upgrading my spinning games drive to a SSD. Write speeds wouldn't have too much of an impact I feel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom