• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

2.5" vs 3.5" SSD

K

Kipernicus

Junior Member
Are there any differences in using 2.5" vs 3.5" SSDs in a desktop computer, all other variables held constant (brand, capacity, controller, etc)? Are there heat, power consumption, or longevity differences?

Thanks

examples:
OCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD2-2VTXE120G 2.5" 120GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227590
OCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD3-2VTX120G 3.5" 120GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227551
 
3,5" is not a normal form factor for SSDs. I've seen it only in the "Colossus" series.

Be careful about SSDs; check which controller they are using. That tells you what kind of performance level your can expect.

My idea of SSD performance (sorted from fastest to slowest):

1. Micron (Crucial C300)
2. Sandforce (OCZ Agility 2, Vertex 2; Corsair Force, etc)
3. Intel
4. Indilinx
5. Samsung
6. JMicron/Toshiba

The 3,5" has more space, but might just be a cheap controller who's powering a lot of cheap chips; that doesn't make it a good SSD. I suggest you stick to popular solid models sold in the wild, rather than something obscure as a 3,5" SSD unless you know it performs very well and is decently built. Still little reason to go 3,5" IMO.

HDDs are also moving to 2,5". In fact, more 2,5" HDDs are being sold today than 3,5" models; 1,8" and 2,5" are becoming the new standard.
 
These are both the same drive- just in different housings. The 3.5 won't need an adaptor to fit in a standard 3.5" drive slot in a "desktop" case. It will, however, be too big to put in a laptop, should that be the desire down the road.
 
I don't understand why OCZ had to make 3.5" versions of the Vertex 2.... Couldn't they just have simply provided 2.5" to 3.5" brackets? That would be more simple on their side and more flexible for the end user. I'd imagine brackets are cheaper than making 3.5" housings too.
 
fffblackmage said:
I don't understand why OCZ had to make 3.5" versions of the Vertex 2.... Couldn't they just have simply provided 2.5" to 3.5" brackets? That would be more simple on their side and more flexible for the end user. I'd imagine brackets are cheaper than making 3.5" housings too.
Click to expand...

the product pic of the 2.5" drive shows a bracket in the kit.

no reason at all to get the 3.5" drive.
 
Well the obvious advantage to 3.5" is that they could stuff more parts into it to increase speed/capacity, although right now its not necessary and thus there's little reason. If the cost is the same the 2.5" drive is probably going to be the same capacity/performance but be more versatile due to its smaller form factor.
 
you could sandwich two boards too! height restrictions of 5mm are not really a problem with 3.5" - 800gb mlc? hells yeah
 
fffblackmage said:
I don't understand why OCZ had to make 3.5" versions of the Vertex 2.... Couldn't they just have simply provided 2.5" to 3.5" brackets? That would be more simple on their side and more flexible for the end user. I'd imagine brackets are cheaper than making 3.5" housings too.
Click to expand...
If I had to take a guess, it would be because the brackets suck. I have one of their 3.5" brackets and it doesn't sit right in my Thermaltake case's hard drive trays. The brackets are really only suitable for cases where the drives are mounted with screws - for whatever reason they're not built similar enough to a real hard drive to work in drive trays.
 
Kipernicus said:
Are there any differences in using 2.5" vs 3.5" SSDs in a desktop computer, all other variables held constant (brand, capacity, controller, etc)? Are there heat, power consumption, or longevity differences?

Thanks

examples:
OCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD2-2VTXE120G 2.5" 120GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227590
OCZ Vertex 2 OCZSSD3-2VTX120G 3.5" 120GB SATA II MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227551
Click to expand...

Your links are showing both as 3.5" drives. for $212.99 after mailin rebate.

EDIT: Now the second link has been taken down.......
 
ViRGE said:
If I had to take a guess, it would be because the brackets suck. I have one of their 3.5" brackets and it doesn't sit right in my Thermaltake case's hard drive trays. The brackets are really only suitable for cases where the drives are mounted with screws - for whatever reason they're not built similar enough to a real hard drive to work in drive trays.
Click to expand...
Yep. The bracket that came with my Vertex 2 sucks arse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top