Thinking I might upgrade to win 7 or just reformat vista soon. That and I want to upgrade my speed a bit. Below are the drives that I am currently considering. Any advice? I haven't read up on ssd's for a while because the price has always been so damm high. http://www.ncix.com/products/index....D-F180GB3-BK&manufacture=Corsair&promoid=1048 Corsair Force 3 Series 180GB 2.5IN SATA3 6GB/S Solid State Disk Flash Drive SSD SandForce SF-2200 http://www.ncix.com/products/index....M-C&manufacture=AData Technology&promoid=1048 ADATA AS510S3-120GM-C 120GB 2.5IN SATA3 SandForce SF-2281 Solid State Disk Drive SSD http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=70359&vpn=SH103S3B/240G&manufacture=Kingston&promoid=1048 Kingston HyperX 3K 240GB 2.5IN SATA3 SF-2281 SSD Drive R/555MB/S W/510MB/S With Upgrade Bundle Kit http://www.ncix.com/products/index....-240G&manufacture=OCZ Technology&promoid=1048 OCZ Agility 3 240GB 2.5IN SATA3 SandForce SF-2281 SSD Solid State Disk Flash Drive
none of them. crucial M4 , Samsung 830 or Intel 330. edit: as for the `why` - sandforce controllers are still having issues on all platforms , even the the latest firmware and bioses - crucial uses a marvell controller , samsung uses its own in house controller and intel uses a sandforce BUT rewrote the firmware from the ground up to fix the controller issues. whilst all out speed is 1 thing , its not the best when it falls over *frequently* (again search for sandforce controllers) - crucial / samsung and intel are more reliable.
What is special about the drives you listed? Is it simply speed that matters with an ssd? how about reliability? I really don't know anything about what separates the good from the bad.
On these forums you will probably get a lot of negative comments about SF controllers, and the same about OCZ. I, OTOH, have 4 OCZ SSDs - 2 x Vertex 3, 1 x Agility 3 and 1 x Vertex 4. Vertex 4 uses an Indilinx controller (Review here, so depending how much you listen to local views, that may be worth considering. It's also currently one of the fastest drives available. I should add that I have not had any problem with any of them (but have only been using SSDs for about 8 months).
I do wish when people say crap like that that they would back it up with evidence. As I said above, I have 3 SF based SSD, none of which have any problems. That (for me) is better evidence than loads of people spreading rumour after rumour about how crap they are (which is based on how bad they WERE some time ago).
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5508/intel-ssd-520-review-cherryville-brings-reliability-to-sandforce ANAND disagrees with your `opinion`it seems , debs , your one of the lucky ones where it comes to sandforce based drives. edit: and another one: http://forums.hexus.net/pc-hardware/247665-ssds-crashes-my-small-rant.html kingston hyper x ssd , under 2 weeks old , and being returned thanks to F4 BSOD`s , my own experience was with vertex 3 , on intel and amd platforms , 3 brand new vertex 3`s all with the latest released (and finally unrealsed) firmware.. changed to crucial and havent looked back.
i have been rocking Corsair Force 3 120gb since January with absolutely zero issues with it. To the point my next SSD 240+ will be another Force 3. But that's just me. Im using Intel controlled Sata3 ports with it.
ok thanks for the info everyone. considering how much they still cost reliability is a major factor for me. and even if its a rumor I will avoid a product if someone can show any kind of evidence that it might have issues.
Hmm... I hope the bug doesn't surface in one of my folding systems, which will be back online tonight. I don't plan on connecting them to the TV (ie spare monitor) more than twice weekly so could waster a lot of power if they crash!
pocketdemon recommends the samsung 830 , its faster than the crucial drive and just as reliable ; myself i go with crucial because of after sales support - problem free RMA if anything goes wrong in the 5 year warranty period.
Well, if you're going for a non-SF... (accepting that you 'could' be one of the small percentage of people who are unlucky & have problems - a seemingly large no of people vocally complaining doesn't equal a large %age of people compared to the no's sold) ...the top 3 consumer SSDs currently are the V4, the 830 & the Performance Pro. All of which are significantly faster than the M4 (unless you have a very unusual usage), have better GC & the latter two use higher spec memory (the V4's faster though). The big reason why i personally bought a pair of 830s a fortnight ago was that they were *much* cheaper (less than £150 each for 256GB models after cashback) than either of the other two... ...or certainly, for that matter, a pair of SFs using toggle nand, which would have been my first choice if they had all been identically priced. [Edit] The Crucial website does state that the M4 only has a 3 year warranty... ...under Product Details - Product details •Most advanced NAND process technology in the semiconductor industry •Limited three-year warranty
If reliability is key You pay the premium for an intel drive, they have a close to faultless record these days. Crucial would get my vote ahead of Samsung due to rma process they are hassle free if any issues do occur Samsung if you live in USA is hassle free uk eu not so much
thats why i chose crucial - had a problem with the M225 i bought on here and they just said ` ok heres an rma` for it
samsung is faster than crucial - but both are more reliable in my opinion than sandforce (even ocz has more to marvell for the vertex 4) - sandforce are the fastest , but have more issues than most....still have more issues.
Built a machine with one for a friend the other day. He has a vertex 3 (no issues I might add) that is fast, but the 830 is faster. Benched them both in the same machine, same controller. I'd buy a Samsung one now if I was purchasing.
Unless there was so little price difference as made no odds then not at all. Well, at the time we were talking, the 830 (& other higher end options) was far more expensive... Since the M4 is decent for reads (with its main failings being write speeds, lower nand spec & worse GC - all of which are completely immaterial for a games only drive), it was (& is) a perfect drive for a games only one; if it is cheaper of course. (i'm not saying that the M4 is dreadful by any stretch, just that there are comparatively better SSDs for an OS/Apps drive - but they at least were all more expensive) if you ignore the cost (given that i was talking about the toggle nand SFs), it depends upon what you're trying to do with them & the capacity point you go for... Well, unless you're after writing nothing but incompressible data (which isn't likely), the 240 V3s (either the standard or max iops) & 256GB 830 trade places... ...& the SFs have the benefits of better GC, raise & vastly higher nand longevity (for an identical data set) over the 830. (at the 120/128GB point, the max iops is much faster than the standard V3 - still, the 120GB max iops & 128GB 830 trade places) Otherwise, it depends on what tests you compared the V3 & the 830 on - naturally, any SF is going to appear worse if you test with unrealistic 99.9% incompressible data b/ms... ...& also whether you SE'd the V3 first to make the comparison fair. Yeah, as said, the reason why i didn't buy a pair of max iopses (or other toggle nand SF) was that they were ridiculously more expensive than the 830s were - or rather, the 830s were at such a good price that i jumped on getting them... (okay, they're bound to become even cheaper to spite me, but that's just what happens when buying tech) Well, unless you've all the money in the world, it's always about getting the best value by trading one thing off another... ...& why i've always tried to talk about the advantages/disadvantages so that people can make up their minds based on the size of their own pockets. (other than making it clear that i *really* do not rate the async nand SFs or the Octane/Petrol) Yeah, some people have had issues with the SFs & i won't dispute that... ...& hopefully the 3rd gen will be better with lsi behind them - both in terms of testing &, as it's the stated plan, getting the incompressible speeds up. Tbh though, the move to Marvell appears to be as much about getting a decent 'indilinx infused' (since it's OCZ/indilinx who've done the f/w - Marvell just provided the controller) SSD out on the market - given that the Petrol & Octane weren't the most fabulous of SSDs... ...as it was to pull away from SF. Well, from what i've seen/read, OCZ have stated that they're happy to use SF controllers again if there's a good reason to - which i've interpreted as being 'if the QC goes up & the price comes down'.
the new in house controller wasnt ready for the vertex 4 - and ocz had to move away , from a marketing pov from sandforce , so they bought a marvel licence and rebranded it - the next drive will have the in house controller.
