Which SSD for me?

No its not for a laptop it is a completely new desktop build I've been holding off finishing for months so I can afford all the bits and pieces I've wanted for it.

I didn't consider let alone budget for a SSD but I freed up some cash recently and it now seems like a the more sensible thing to add rather than more RAM, which was my original intention.

SATA III definitely, price across most brands is barely distinguishable ie. 64GB is going to cost about £35 - £40 and 120/128GB £45 - £55 so, with my max budget:£50, it would be stupid not to to choose a SATA III 120/128GB.

I was looking at Kingston 120GB SSDs but came across plenty of people unhappy with the "asynchronous NAND" they've apparently swapped in recently. I'd no idea what this meant until today but it did put me off Kingston SSDs. However even excluding them I'm still a bit at sea as there seem to be currently multiple options at 120GB even from a single manaufacturer like SandDisk. That's without considering slightly older models either.

Any specific 120/128GB SSD recommendations appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Also have in mind to check the speeds on 64 - 128GB capacities. The bigger models become faster in IOPS (256 - 512 etc)and read write speeds. Some have terrible IOPS (dont remember was it a Kingston or a Sandisk). As it is nowadays Samsung or Crucial (lower write speeds) is the norm but i dont have experience in 128gb capacities.

And an example of what i meant above for the Samsung EVO drives:

120GB
Sequential READ: up to 540 MB/s
Sequential 128KB WRITE: up to 410 MB/s
Random READ: up to 94,000 IOPS
Random WRITE: up to 35,000 IOPS
250GB
Sequential READ: up to 540 MB/s
Sequential WRITE: up to 520 MB/s
Random READ: up to 97,000 IOPS
Random WRITE: up to 66,000 IOPS
500GB
Sequential READ: up to 540 MB/s
Sequential WRITE: up to 520 MB/s
Random READ: up to 98,000 IOPS
Random WRITE: up to 90,000 IOPS

I have seen an SSD that had 3500 IOPS which was quite low if i am not mistaken. But i dont see any issue going for a 120.
 
Thanks.

After much research I was going to go for the Crucial MX100 128GB SSD. However it seems it is little different in real world performance from the slightly older 120GB Crucial M500 and M550 so, if I can find either cheaper, I might go for one of those instead.

Apparently the MX100 128GB also uses similar 20nm NAND to the older models rather than the new 16nm NAND used in the 256GB and higher capacity MX100 versions. In some test reviews I've found there were not only unanswered questions raised about the longevity of 16nm NAND but. more importantly, their performance when compared to the older M550 SSD was often indistinguishable.

None of the 120/128GB Crucials, even the m550, have stellar performance anyway, particularly in comparison with the currently popular Samsung 840 range. But SSDs like that come at a premium cost of, typically £15 - £20 more than the current best Crucial prices.

What I do like about the Crucials though is the sound of their "enterprise grade" safety features like "power fail capacitors" and general, at least alleged, high reliability. That actually means more to me than pure speed as I intend to be using the PC in question at least 5 years from now.

Edit:-

Actually I now have gone for the newer Crucial MX100 128GB SSD. A simply price decision really as I couldn't find the m500 signifcantly cheaper and the better spec m550 was >£10 more than either.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom