Hmmm, can you get a beer for 50 cents?
I wouldn't say it's a bad time. Say the drive drops from $170 by 50 percent in the next 6 months- it will be $85, and you save $85. So in other words, you pay about 50 cents per day for six months for all that extra speed. Hmmm, can you get a beer for 50 cents?
OCZ Vertex 2 is the fastest SSD on the market and u can get it for $150 w/ mail in rebate from some sites. It has an exclusive firmware that allows it to perform on par w/ enterprise level SSDs, unlike other sandforce SSDs which perform standard 1200 controller levels (its hardly a noticeable difference, but you have peace of mind u got the best on the market). Google it.
Huh? You seem to be mixing some things up. I've yet to see a review that shows that the controller handles less spare space better or worse than other modern controllers.With no over provisioning, or compression by the C300 controller, 20 percent or so needs to be left as unallocated space.
You seem to be mixing some things up.
Yeah that's a common misunderstanding, but no, just because the controller only has to write 7 instead of 10gb of data (i.e. transfer 7gb from RAM to the SSD over the SATA link), it'll still need 10gb of space to save it, so only time but no space savings (and no wasted write cycles).. would make the controller even more complicated and would add latency to every read - although yeah I think someone will try that sooner or later as well. SSDs are still a rather new technology, so lots of possibilities to improve.Again, I'm not an expert, , and I didn't read this anywhere, so there's no link, but to me, if the SF controller can save space by not writing all the data, it can then use that saved space as spare aria. In other words, OS says: “Here SF, write down this 10Gb file.” SF says: “OK, no problem.”, but instead of writing 10GB, it only needs to write 7, since there was a bunch of it that was the same stuff over and over. That's a pretty hefty savings. SF doesn't tell OS about the saved space, and OS thinks 10GB were used up. Now, SF can internally allocate that saved 3GB to use as spare aria.
Hmm yeah you could be right on that one - would actually make more sense that way, though shouldn't those SF drives work much better with low spare space than any other drive, since it would inevitably have lots of spare space in either case?But, if only 7GB are transfered from RAM, and the file results in only 7Gb worth of writes, than why would it take 10Gb to store the file? It can't write back, because it doesn't have the capaciter like the enterprise drives, so it seems it's truly only writing the 7Gb. If it's only writing 7, but reporting 10, I don't understand how there wouldn't be extra space left over for it's "personal use".
here is a decent entry level one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc..._-NA-_-NA-_-NA
The SiliconEdge Blue uses the JMicron controller, with WD's custome FW. It's a very poor choise due to stuttering, and relatively slow overall speeds in it's price group. If you can get one for 20 bucks or so, you wouldn't feel so ripped off, but $150?
it's 115 ... not horribly for an entry level ssd
Perhaps you and I have a different definition of “entry level”.
To me, when someone buys an SSD, they are expecting a performance boost. So “entry level” means lower capacity, but still a significant performance gain, due to the increased price.
The SiliconeEdge Blue will stutter, so the performance gains are negligible. Anyone expecting a performance gain will be sorely disappointed.
You can buy a 1Tb WD Caviar Black for about $.08/Gb. Real world, the SiliconeEdge 64Gb drive only has 50Gb usable space. 50Gb of the Black = $4, so I'm being generous by saying the SiliconeEdge might be worth $20. 20 is much less than 115