http://www.dabs.com/products/kingst...aign=email280612-kingstonSSD&utm_content=i700 Sorry if this has been posted before, done a quick search and could not find it. I have no real need for anther SSD alongside my M4, but blimey, I am tempted to get one just for my current games.
Just wish the price crash would hit 32GB SSDs as well. Could really use one for netbook but they're still more than £1/GB for some reason.
Yeah, but it is a dreadful drive performance-wise... Much as i hate the async nand SFs, even a 6Gb/s one of them would be significantly faster. (i don't think JMicron ever made a decent SSD controller)
I was thinking about this kind of thing for an Acer nettop I've got. The HDD is appallingly slow, and it's only got an Intel Atom CPU so performance is dire. Although these SSDs might be bad compared to a Samsung 830, it might be good for these kind of circumstances. I don't need more than 128gb for the nettop, and it currently has a 320gb HDD.
And the % of people who will notice the difference in real world performance between this and the Samsung 830....probably less than 5%. Most people do not do tasks on a daily basis which would make the difference perceivable or worthwhile.
For a high end computer, probably not, as the Samsung 830 128gb is only £20 more. For a lower end one it's a good price.
I do, it's on Sata 3 (mobo has two S3 ports), but in the real world I wouldn't be able to tell the difference if it was on a Sata 2 port for the tasks I do. Read tom's article about real world dif between SSDs on Sata2/3. Likewise, I'v tried 1st gen SSD's and they feel just as responsive and fast for the everyday tasks most people do: i.e. web browse/listen to media/office tasks/play games/skype/and maybe a little photo and video editing once in a while. Any modern SSD will be leaps and bounds above a HDD (open up apps in seconds, boot quickly, silent operation, no access time, etc), but the difference between the fastest and slowest SDD, not so much for those tasks. What PD does, as always, is tarnish other SSDs because of his unusual needs which would in fact see a substantial difference between an SSD with a read/write of 200mb vs 1000mb, because he must copy/transfer GB's of data constantly. However, the majority of us do not do these tasks on a daily basis and to that extent, hence why I think it's very misleading to say the SSD "is a dreadful drive performance-wise".
Fine, i agree completely that it's all comparative... & naturally have been using SSDs since 2009 so have seen technology move with r.l. usage - & have continued to re-purpose old SSDs... But we're talking about a £20 difference between a shonky SSD & something like the 830... (i wasn't saying to buy an async nand SF btw - simply a relative comment) ...& something which, whilst naturally having faster sequential speeds than a gen 1 SSD (albeit not a patch on a decent 6Gb/s SSD), has a significantly slower small r/w speeds (based on a quick check of 4Ks as i can't instantly find complete b/ms) than something like my old V Turbos... (typically >50% of r/ws are <=64K) (the V Turbos are going to be re-purposed into my folks' PC & laptop - as there's enough life left in them & so no point in throwing them away when they'll do someone a good turn) So, would you really suggest that it'd be worthwhile saving £20 (vs the 830) & buying something that, in part, is worse than an almost 3 year old model? The V200 also has a poor rep for being able to maintain speeds from what i've read. [NB the V+200 is a completely different SSD btw] Anyway, back to the top - yes, i agree that it is all comparative &. of course, anyone can buy whatever SSD they want to, but... [Edit] Needed to be on the phone for a while so didn't have time to go through the rest of your post, but... ...picking up on a couple of other points here - 1. by writing "in the real world I wouldn't be able to tell the difference if it was on a Sata 2 port for the tasks I do" you're personally comparing a single SSD on both a 3Gb/s & a 6Gb/s controller... ...not a decent SSD vs a much worse one... [NB it's also not clear what 6Gb/s controller you're using - if it were a Marvell one then you'd actually find it felt quicker on a 3Gb/s intel or AMD one d.t. reduced latency boosting the low end speeds - since, again, the majority of r/w i/os are <=64K.] ...but, if you look, for example, at the 256GB M4 on both a decent 3Gb/s & proper 6Gb/s controller (simply chosen as there's comparable data for both), you'll see that there is a significant difference irl usage. For a basic, low level usage such as you're describing then you'd need to look at the "Light Workload" b/ms here... With reads there's a ~38.6% decrease / for writes a ~19.5% decrease / &, on average, a 27.5% decrease. These are the real life differences in speed that you will see when actually using the SSD day to day (& have a cumulative effect over time) - neither being purely artificial b/ms nor doing pointless testing like Tom's h/w did with boot speeds & file copying... ...neither of which are real life day to day uses for a basic user - well, you don't reboot 100s of times a day or constantly copy files on & off as either would be a b stupid waste of time... 2. & i'm not quite sure what your point is about the Tom's h/w article... Well, in the conclusion it states - "If you spend all of your time looking at predominantly synthetic storage benchmarks, which tend to frame storage workloads in the most taxing light possible, then you end up missing a huge piece of the storage performance picture. Yes, those metrics are critically important in comparing SSDs. As you see in the real-world tests, it'd be almost impossible to determine a winner between OCZ's Vertex 3, Crucial's m4, or Samsung's 830 using mainstream workloads. Drilling down into specific profiles like 4 KB random writes or 128 KB sequential reads makes it much easier to draw conclusions about the idiosyncrasies of each drive's architecture. But a relative strength in all of those benchmarks doesn't necessarily translate into a positive gain in user experience. Does an extra 25% jump in testable data throughput cut your Windows boot time or make backing up a game on Steam faster by a corresponding percentage? Does it even directly translate into file copies that finish that much faster? Not at all. So, here's the thing. Yes, there are clear cases, particularly if you're a power user, where owning a motherboard with 6 Gb/s is going to allow your 6 Gb/s-capable SSD to shine. However, if a friend were to ask us if he should hold off on an SSD purchase until he could upgrade his old Core 2 machine to something newer with 6 Gb/s connectivity, we'd say no. For someone using a hard drive today, a fast SSD (even one artificially hobbled by a 3 Gb/s port) will yield massive and immediate gains in nearly every aspect of computing." Now, after noting that the tests that were carried out within the article were either purely artificial or completely pointless (as above)... ...the important phrases here are - (a) "If you spend all of your time looking at predominantly synthetic storage benchmarks, which tend to frame storage workloads in the most taxing light possible, then you end up missing a huge piece of the storage performance picture." Hence linking to the comparative testing for a light workload in 1 above (you could obviously look at the heavy workload if your workload is heavier). (b) "Drilling down into specific profiles like 4 KB random writes or 128 KB sequential reads makes it much easier to draw conclusions about the idiosyncrasies of each drive's architecture." & "Does an extra 25% jump in testable data throughput cut your Windows boot time or make backing up a game on Steam faster by a corresponding percentage? Does it even directly translate into file copies that finish that much faster? Not at all." This is why i've always stated that things like AS-SSD, CDM, etc are a very poor way of testing (unless you happen to have a very specific usage that happens to be shown up by one of the limited things that they test)... ...&, again, how many times a day do you reboot, copy stuff on & off of your SSD or backup your steam folder??? (c) "For someone using a hard drive today, a fast SSD (even one artificially hobbled by a 3 Gb/s port) will yield massive and immediate gains in nearly every aspect of computing." By referring to "a 3 Gb/s port" they are talking about the difference between a "a fast SSD" on a 3Gb/s vs 6Gb/s port, NOT a decent SSD & a shonky one where the price difference is £20. Anyway, i'm not trying to 'start a fight' here - just pointing out the limitations of what's been suggested & the content of what's been linked to... ...& also, as an addtion, that it all ignores the other the advantages & disadvantages that different SSDs have- such as how robust the SSD controller & f/w are in maintaining speeds & nand longevity, possible compatibility problems, tech such as raise & compression on the SFs/different speed modes for the V4s/etc, the min nand spec, etc... There's just far more to it than simply saying that 'any SSD must be good' because, when it's new, it tests faster than a HDD.
In what aspects does a SandForce2 drive fail to meet your demands PocketDemon? I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely interested in your comments, as I use mostly second generation SandForce drives (Kingston HyperX or OCZ Vertex3) in all my builds lately. Looking at benchmarks alone (have not had the chance to directly compare a Vertex3 with an M4 or a 830) I see no reason to change the brand of SSD that will go in my future builds. Or am I looking at the wrong benchmarks? Really, I'm interested in your experiences with the different brands and controllers, and the reasons for avoiding SandForce2 drives.
performance doesn't look too impressive, whether io would notice it or not take a look at my ram and arguably psu to see whether I am concerned about squashing my budget as much as possible I like to know i have fast stuff, and settling for an entry-mid range ssd wouldn't be my cup of tea OF COURSE that being said, the price is very tempting. But I would rather save a few more pennies and get something that is faster, if only on benchmarks
On the basis of the topic, are you mistaking the V200 (JMicron controller) for the V+200 (Sandforce controller)? To answer your question anyway - Now, other that there being a potential for bsod issues (which i rate far lower on here than others do - there's a small chance, & if you get them with your machine you return them for another using a different controller), there is absolutely nothing wrong with using SFs. Okay, the async nand ones really aren't great - the 120GB sync nand ones are roughly equivalent to the 128GB M4 - & the 240GB sync nand & 120/240GB toggle nand ones are faster than the M4 but slightly slower than the 830/V4/Performance Pro, etc... [NB obviously this is based upon a general OS/apps usage overall - not on focusing upon any one i/o.] However they do have significant advantages with nand longevity (d.t. compression) & are the only (at least consumer) SSDs that can survive the failure of an entire nand die. Now, the toggle nand SFs (& to some extent the 240GB sync nand ones), the 830, the V4 & the PP are roughly equivalent - or rather, they are the top end consumer drives which all have pros & cons... [NB there's also the Plextor M3 Pro which, at least at the 256GB level, looks to be damn good based on the review on Anand... ...albeit that it's doesn't look that fabulous in non-trim. Note also that the V4 has had a new f/w which increases the performance no end but they've not looked at it yet.] ...but, alongside performance, nand spec & magical tech, one of the biggest pros & cons is always price. Obviously the point of originally commenting was that, whilst this 128GB V200 is cheaper than the 830 (as the best ~£80 128GB SSD), there are times when saving money is a really poor choice... ...however, whilst i would not have bought my new 256GB 830s if all of the top end SSDs had been the same price, they were at least £50 (if not >£100 on some models) cheaper than everything other than most of the 240GB sync nand SFs... ...&, not least as i increase the OP quite significantly (increasing the robustness of any modern SSD), the performance of the 256GB 830 (with 5,000 min count nand) outdid the tech advantages of the sync nand SFs (with 3,000 min count nand) imho. [NB unless you're using them for nothing but highly compressed sequentials where you'd get roughly identical cycle usage, the SFs have a greater nand longevity d.t. far lower write amplification.] Then, at the 120/128GB level, the 830 & some sync nand SFs are much the same price at ~£80... [NB also many of the async nand SFs are also ~£80 so it seems a little pointless buying them as they are much worse.] ...& again it's about making the choice between the performance of the 830 (with 5,000 min count nand) & the tech advantages of the sync nand SFs (with 3,000 min count nand)... ...noting that the performance difference increases significantly vs the 240/256GB models. So anyway, it's not saying that there's anything wrong with the SFs at all - i really do like their tech btw & have generally been a proponent of them (with some people accusing me of being an OCZ plant) - but - (a) the async nand ones are comparatively not great - esp as there now seems to be almost no difference in cost at the 120GB level, & very little at the 240GB... (i do appreciate that you're looking at sync nand ones but it's just noting stuff) (b) & it's a trade off between the advanced tech of the SFs & the advanced r.l. performance of the 830 - given that there's not a significant price difference. Anyway, hopefully that should roughly cover things for you. Yeah, but then you do only have a 64GB M4 according to the spec listed... Just letting the side down there after great choices on the cpu, mobo & memory. Tsk. & this, as with the OCZ Petrol & Octane, & the async nand SFs, is *really* entry level stuff now... ...without buying historical models of course. ...you'd see r.l. gains even by going for a 128GB M4/120GB sync nand SF - & neither of them are anything particularly 'special'.
Good to read other peoples insight into these drives. Might wait and get another M4. Incredible drive and has not missed a beat. I had a OCZ before it, which I had for a couple of days and it was utter trash. Not knocking them and the basis of one drive but I may stick to Crucial for SSDs in the same way I stick to Corsair for my PSUs.
Obviously your call but, on the basis of current pricing, it might be an idea to reconsider & go for an 830 for the boot drive & repurpose the M4 you've got for games... Simply that you'd see r.l. gains doing it that way.
pocketdemon the thing is - different people are happy with different products - i myself sing the virtues of crucial , mainly because of there customer support! never had anything but a fantastic expereince if things go wrong! products for me have been reliable (which i cannot say the same for the sandforce based drives ive had) , and there actually very fast; as has been said above - can you honestly say you can tell the difference between 250 mb/s and 300 mb/s? honestly? i certainly cant.
That's absolutely fine - & is exactly why i said that it was happyhammer7's call... ...& it doesn't matter to me either which way. (well, i don't have shares in SSD manufacturers, so...) But the 830s are very reliable, have better spec nand, faster r/w speeds overall, superior GC & 'appear' to be ~£5 cheaper for the 128GB & ~£15 for the 256GB... ...well, unless there's some discount or rebate offer in the UK that i'm unaware of.
