Help needed to choose SSD

[T0bias]

Hello,

I am thinking of buying an SSD. I am not sure which one to buy though - neither if this is the right time to buy them as it seems like Intel will release new ones quite soon?

Been searching a bit and came up with these four options.

1. Intel X25-M 160GB
2. Crucial C300 128GB
3. OCZ Vertex 2 120GB
4. Wait?

Other suggestions are welcome

What do you think I should do? The nice thing about the Intel drive is the that it got a bit higher capacity, but it seems to me that it is getting a bit old and the next generation is around the corner?

I am really in doubt if I should wait out a couple of months before buying, or if I should buy now. I hope someone can help me If you need further information please tell me.

 

[RaistlinZ]

From what I hear the next Gen Intel drives should be around the corner. If I were buying today I'd opt for the faster Sandforce 1200 based drives like the Vertex 2. Either that, or hold off a bit and see what develops. Capacities are going up and prices are falling slowly, which is good for all of us.

 

[beginner99]

If you can wait, then wait. Just don't wait forever.
The advantage about the current intel drive is, that it is probably the drive that has the most hours used in real-life by real users. Meaning chances of some unknown fatal error are rather slim. SF1200 is pretty new, less experience around but faster.

 

[MerrickAggie97]

I have two a Crucial 256GB in RAID 0 mode.

 

[LokutusofBorg]

I really don't think the new Intel tech is "right around the corner". The roadmap has always been Q4, which means end of the year. They wouldn't have meant beginning of Q4, cause then their marketing pukes would have bumped it up to Q3. If you want this drive for Christmas, then I'd wait. If you want to have it now, just buy the best bang for buck now.

If you want reliability get an Intel. If you want performance, get a Vertex 2 or equivalent. If you have a 6Gbps motherboard, get a Crucial.

 

[T0bias]

Thanks for the nice responses

I don't have a 6Gpbs motherboard, but I intend this SSD to last through my next upgrade as well (currently got Intel Q9450 and GTS250).

Considering the new Intel drives, do you think they will improve a lot performance wise, or would the wait primarily result in saved money and/or a higher capacity?

And regarding the performance difference between the Intel drive and the Crucial or OCZ drive - do you think it is something that is really noticeable in real-life performance?

 

[beginner99]

I would mainly wait because of price per gigabyte. Will sure be lower than now.
Intel sure has some room for improvment in write speed to current generation (G2) but you will be limited by sata pretty quickly for read speeds.

 

[FishAk]

And regarding the performance difference between the Intel drive and the Crucial or OCZ drive - do you think it is something that is really noticeable in real-life performance?

It depends on what you are doing. You can't get much faster than instant, but if you're doing something that takes time due to disk access, than ya, you will notice a differance with SATA III speeds over II.

From what I hear, the new Intel drives will be bigger, faster, and support SATA III. IF the prices are similar to today's, it will drive prices for today's drives downward significantly, but it will probably be 1st or 2nd Q next year for bugs/prices to settle.

The capacity of the Intel 160 drive is comparable to the Sandforce 130 when you consider over-provisioning and compression algorithms of the SF controller. I don't have either, but from what I read, people don't percieve a difference between them in the real world.

 

[T0bias]

I am using my PC mostly for 3D software like maya, 3ds max etc, gaming and some video editing.
With this in mind, do you think it would be better to take a SATA3 drive, even though I won't utilize it right away (guess I need a new motherboard to do that)?


FishAK, what do you mean with the last part you wrote? Is the actual usable capacity of the Vertex 2 120GB and Intel 160GB not different?

And I am quite sure I read that Intel won't support sata 3 before sometime in 2011 - might be wrong though.

 

[beginner99]

I am using my PC mostly for 3D software like maya, 3ds max etc, gaming and some video editing.
With this in mind, do you think it would be better to take a SATA3 drive, even though I won't utilize it right away (guess I need a new motherboard to do that)?


FishAK, what do you mean with the last part you wrote? Is the actual usable capacity of the Vertex 2 120GB and Intel 160GB not different?

And I am quite sure I read that Intel won't support sata 3 before sometime in 2011 - might be wrong though.

At least for the intel drive it helps to only fill it about 80% else performance might get impacted. Don't know about the sandforce drives but I think they are less limited by this. (already have more spare area than intel drives).

 

[FishAk]

Is the actual usable capacity of the Vertex 2 120GB and Intel 160GB not different?

Check this link: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3690/...andforce-more-capacity-at-no-performance-loss

Note that the SF 100GB drives are actually 128GB. Depending on how the controller designates spare aria, usable space is 93GB (28&#37 or 111GB (13%).

Also, the SF controller doesn't write everything to the drive, only what it needs to keep track of the info it stores. For practical use, this would mean even more spare aria is on the SF flash.

This means you can totally fill the SF, while you should make your own spare aria on the Intel.

160 less 28% is 115GB, and less 13% is 139GB. Since the Intel writes everything to the disk, the 13% probably isn't very realistic, and you should shoot for closer to 25-30% spare aria.

This makes the drives actual user capacity much closer to each other than one would think at first look.

Edit:
Oh... The very last part...

I mean people don't seem to notice a difference between the SF and Intel drive SPEED. Sorry, it looks like I was talking about people's perception of capacity, and not speed in that last sentence

 

[T0bias]

I think this stuff is very confusing

Didn't think about this over-provisioning. I can't really see in which way the advertised capacity on the OCZ drive makes any sense now? Unless only around 6-7% is saved on a 120GB Vertex2 drive - if it is a 128GB, 6-7% off would mean 120GB usable space. Not sure if that is correct though?

And is it the general consensus that you need to create a quite big spare area with an Intel drive yourself?
In the article you link it appears like the usable capacity of a 160GB Intel drive is 149GB which, unless I have misunderstood something, equals around 7% over provision. Therefore I think it sounds a bit odd if you would have to increase it all the way to 25-30% yourself..

 

[FishAk]

There are many experts on here, but I'm not one. I also don't own either of those drives.


I do see, however, people reporting degraded performance with their Intel drives, which looks like is mostly caused from over filling the drive. Since, like SF, Intel uses spare aria to maintain performance, I figure it's fair to assume similar spare amount- especially since the Intel controller doesn't get extra spare aria from compression like SF.

 

[sub.mesa]

Intel uses the difference between GB ('fake' gigabyte) and GiB ('real' gigabyte) as spare area.

Thus Intel 80GB is actually 80GiB, but only has 80GB as visible and usable storage space. The 6.8% difference is used as spare area. This is very low, as Sandforce models have either 14% or 28% storage. Generally i recommend spare area of ~25% so 28% would be great. Because Intel uses much less spare area, it becomes useful to increase this area leading to less available storage space. It's a balance between storage capacity and performance over time.

Here's a graph that explains it visually:

 

[T0bias]

So I should count on ~120GiB with the Intel 160GB? And does your recommendation of spare area go for the Vertex 2 drive as well?

It's difficult for me to decide because right now would be a nice time for me to get a new disk (lots of spare time and it would be a nice thing to put together with an upgrade from vista to 7), but its not like I can't wait if waiting makes more sense

I'm getting a little worried if the disks are big enough when you have to take all these considerations about spare area etc. into account.

Perhaps I use less space than I think, but it's always nice not to be close to the edge

 

[razel]

I'd keep an eye out for an awesome deal like $1.5 per GIG on a current model SSD. I also wouldn't over think SSD technology too much. All these issues you're seeing are under control. I'd worry more about getting an SSD with a good warranty at a good price. Price and reliability are really the major remaining problems with SSDs. You are storing your data (assuming for the long term) and many SSD companies are new at that. When it does fail, hopefully you won't have to prove it too much or ship too far to get it replaced.

 

[JoshGuru7]

What is your reason for looking at a higher capacity SSD? Why not put windows and your modelling software on a smaller SSD like the intel g2 80, then pick up a handful of 2TB drives to run in raid 5 for your media and non-speed intensitive storage stuff?

 

[FishAk]

SF already designates plenty of spare aria, so you are free to completely fill all the space your OS can see.

If the price differance is negligable, I would certainly go for the Vertex 2 100GB over the Intel 160 for an OS drive, due to the 4K advantage of the Vertex. If the price for the Vertex 2 is much more- than; not so much.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1299/14/

Between the Vertex 2 and Intel, you are trading capacity for speed. About 22GB vs 120MB/s aligned 4K random writes, and 150MB/s 2MB sequential writes. Note that reads are about the same between the drives, which is probably why people don't really notice a difference.

 

[FishAk]

pick up a handful of 2TB drives to run in raid 5 for your media and non-speed intensitive storage stuff?

If you place any type of value on your data, you should never consider RAID 5. You may as well use RAID 0 as RAID 5, since you won't be tempted to fool yourself that your data is protected. Instead, use 1. 10, or 01.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2086770

The 80GB drive might work OK, but it's usable space is pretty small if you create 25-30% spare aria. Also, the 160 is kind of like two 80 GB drives in RAID 0.

 

[Necrolezbeast]

AFAIK the G-skill Phoenix Pro is their equiv to the vertex 2, and it seems to be dropping to around $289 on newegg for the 120gb version every few days..... also, right now the newegg shell shocker is an Agility 2, $235, good deal I reckon... I am hardly an SSD expert, having just purchased my first, the Phoenix Pro, I can say I love it but I have nothing to compare it to...

As most people will say though, a slow SSD will be a great improvement over a fast HDD, I doubt there is much of a real world difference between the Agility 2 and the Vertex 2, if you are buying now I would vote of hitting that shellshocker deal and calling it good.

good luck!

 

[FishAk]

The last I heard, was that OCZ had exclusive official access to the special SF firmware that gives the Vertex 2 the performance of the 1500 controller. The Agility 2 is straight 1200, and if OCZ still has exclusive use of the "Special Sauce", than G-skill will be straight 1200 also.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3661/understanding-sandforces-sf1200-sf1500-not-all-drives-are-equal/2

 

[T0bias]

Thanks again for all the answers so far, it is nice with some input

I'm living in Denmark and here the Vertex 2 120GB is a little bit cheaper than the Intel 160GB (not pr. GB though).
Capacity wise I guess I'll have to make a list with the main programs and games I intend to put on it, and then see what it adds up to Games tend to require quite a lot space nowadays.

 

[Emulex]

i like intel advanced next day air swap. if you are a corporation this is something that you may not get from (choose others). my x25-m died, i had a new one in the morning, no credit card b/s, prepaid return shipping. Of course end users may not get such level of support but that is a Huge free plus that i find a great value add.

 

[FishAk]

According to this:http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.p...sk=view&id=531&Itemid=60&limit=1&limitstart=5
Both G-skill's Phoenix Pro, and the Vertex 2 have the same firmware, so maybe OCZ lost it's exclusivity?

 

[LokutusofBorg]

Anand has a very good article on the whole SF1200 firmware thing... Secret Sauce or something similar. Easy to find if you go look in the SSD section on the main site.

You shouldn't worry about the over-provisioning thing that has taken over this thread. The 50GB and 100GB versions of the SF1200 drives aren't worth buying, as the 60GB and 120GB models show almost the exact same performance. I believe the 50GB/100GB models are just units left in the channel, and everything OCZ is putting out currently are the "larger" models.

You also shouldn't manually over-provision your SF1200 or Intel drive by making your partition smaller than the max the Windows installer allows. Both the SF and Intel controller use partitioned free space the same as unpartitioned free space. And the reason OCZ is now selling the "larger" drives is because 7% provisioned space is the sweet spot.

You should just roughly count on trying not to go over 60% total used space for max performance, and if you really want to keep more data on there, don't go over 80% and you'll still have acceptably high performance. That translates to around ~75GB & ~95GB used on a 120GB Vertex 2, or ~95GB & ~128GB used on a 160GB Intel. So you're essentially over-provisioning by not filling the drive up, but you still *can* if you need or want to, and you'll get acceptable performance and have the *option* of using/not using that space. If you use your partition size to over-provision, you don't have the choice later. Seems kind of daft to limit yourself artificially like that.