So it's my brother birthday and his HDD is an old 160Gb relic that is dying, along with my old 80Gb unit Needless to say, as a gamer with 75Gb Steam library (not huge but still) and a crap tonne of other games, he's filled that 230~Gb with games, the OS and his stuff and would like to install another few games. My original plan was a TB HDD with SSD cache, however, after having another think, a 512Gb SSD would seem to suffice. I don't think he'll ever get close to filling it, and if he does he can just get another/a HDD. So the cheapest 512Gb SSD's seem to be the Crucial M4 (£300) and the Vertex 4 (£312), unfort Samsung 830's seem quite expensive at this capacity. So which to go for? I don't really see much between them, and ofc in real life my brother won't... The M4 is "apparently" very reliable, or so I gather, but by now OCZ drives are presumably as safe as Crucial's. So speed is the decider? In which case the Vertex 4 wins? Also, I presume that drives come with the latest firmware installed?
OCZ still comparing badly against other manufacturers, someone pointed me at a link today to a site, I'll try & get the link & post it tomorrow.
Both the Vertex 4, and M4 are rated well on these forums. The main issues around OCZ drives was the Controllers firmware, but it's been around a while now, so things are much better than they used to be. Sam
I've seen the Crucial M4 rated, on a reliable site, as the best buy, overall, for larger SSD's. I'm not convinced that a large SSD, only, is necessarily the best solution. There's always a lot of mundane stuff that's frankly wasted on an SSD. Tend to think that a good sized SSD, yes, but also a medium sized HHD, may be the better solution. Second drive can also be used for backups. Safer than doing them, on SSD, as well, and more convenient, sometimes, than an external drive. I tend to do back ups to 2nd internal drive, most of the time, and, occassionally, to external.
The M4 is fairly solid, I have a 512Gb in my laptop, but not without issues, something did go wrong with it which needed a reinstall and the latest firmware fixes a bug that made it blue screen after 5000 hours operation. I would still recommend with the proviso that I am yet to hear of a 100% reliable SSD (maybe the Samsung, as you pointed out, buck$), the M4 has been around longer though so hopefully issues have been ironed out more. I shelled out for a Samsung 830 too but I have not had it long enough to gauge reliability.
Go with the vertex 4. However I would recommend getting the Vertex 4 256GB, and get a nice fast(est) 7200RPM RPM HDD. This way he will have plenty of space for OS, games, programs, projects, wtc.. and have plenty of space from the HDD for music files, and movies (which loads virtually instantly in any case, as the content is usually streamed from the drive)
I say, go with the Crucial M4. OCZ might no longer use the BSoD-prone SandForce controller, but a rebranded Marvell one. However, it has been claimed that OCZ's drives might not ship in identical configurations as those shipped to reviewers. Also, OCZ still has a bad rep and apparently higher return rates than most other known SSD brands. If not the M4, I'd suggest looking at either the Samsung 830 or the Intel 330/520 series.
Based on my benchmarks of my OCZ Vertex 4 256GB on SATA-2, it beats the Samsung 830 in reviews. (I have firmware 1.5)
Considering that each manufacture sales millions of units, the sample size is too small. Also the name of the so call "French etailer" is unknown, and the raw data is not presented. So they could have anything. Also, they are looking at 1 place in the world, from 1 etailer. Also they look at more OCZ models than other brands, so it is expected that they have a higher percentage. Beside the so call 7% (worst case) is nothing. That 91% reliability. This is very good for consumer product. Also, the reason why OCZ purchased Indilix was to acquire better knowledge and product better SSD's. The Vertex 4 shows this. While it uses a renamed Marvel controller, the custom firmware (most likely done by the Indilix team), and also chip selection and manufacturing process all consulted by Indilix (else it would one waist of money), is for sure better. No yes, I have no proof, and yes OCZ could have purchased that company and done nothing with it. But I doubt it. Also, they are actively improving the performance and reliability of their SDD like the Vertex 4, which which provided massive improvements in all aspect at each firmware update. Moreover you can see that OCZ has been very proactive in improving their SSD reliability. Example: 250GB Vertex 2 has 15% return rate.. that is bad. But the Vertex 3 of the same size, is only 6%. Another problem when using etailer stats, is where did the consumer return the product. Many returned the product to the manufacture for RMA. All this data says is that the other SSD manufacture reliability starts well.. but after the etailer return window... we have no idea on their reliability. Maybe the Crucial are all amazing but after 6month 20% of them fails. We don't know. Moreover, we don't know the REASON for the return. A return doesn't mean the SSD is broken. Maybe consumer was not happy with the performance, maybe he read stories and decided to return it or exchange it, maybe he didn't like the color, I don't know, we don't know. The only state to be considered is the actual manufacture return, and only include those who have had a true manufacture fault. (So many people return wireless cards, and routers because they don't know how to set it up, or have a computer problem, such as a broken Windows due a virus attack, for example. Are they all really faulty? No)
Yeaa... all nice... but my screen shot is better.. the Windows borders are real transparent [/snob][/douch bag][/crummy show offer] In all seriousness, that one heck of some crazy performance! Cool stuff! So what SSD are you using? and which controller (Intel or special RAID card is what I am really asking)?
All brands & products have their horror stories if you look hard enough. OP asked the question, it's useful information. I have 2 intel SSDs.
I would take your comment seriously, if you didn't purchase an over priced SSD, which causes you to have a buyers regret, and trying to justify your purchase as being more "reliable". My massively defense reply, informs the OP about issues with the article you posted, for him to take a smart decision.
http://www.crucial.com/uk/store/partspecs.aspx?IMODULE=CT512M4SSD2 direct from crucial and cheaper than the ocz
I sense sway"ance" toward the slightly cheaper M4 then, as real world performance is near identical anyway. Reliability is priority About two Samsung 830 256Gb's, what would be the disadvantage of that setup compared to a single 512 M4? I suppose there's twice as much chance of one failing, although presumably that's still very small. I'd like to set them up as one 475Gb~ drive, and I can't remember, can you do that on Windows install? Or must you do it in the Windows Disk Manager? Makes little difference I spose. Although if I do set them up as one disk, is it possible to allow for 10% unallocated space per drive? Might just be easier to setup a C: and D: drive I suppose. And I understand the idea it's more cost effective to get a 256 SSD and TB HDD, but I'd bet that he'll only fill 300-350Gb~ with games, and then 50 for OS and files. Leaves round 100 Gb free. Cheers for suggestions/replies/answers
Lol ya was a crappy snip. 2 M4 (raid 0 so a slight cheat) on the intel controller latest RST drivers. I would also back the OCZ disks they stand by the warranty and have the best support forum. I found Crucials forum very lacking also tools for the disks are none existent. As OCZ provide both windows tools and a bootable linux disk. A good place to start and learn with good support
What are your system specs this is very important!, depending on how you run the disk it can start getting tricky (and yes i've had this array fail on me)
