Is 64GB SSD's write speed enough?

[ironhalik]

Hello

I want to buy a 64 gig crucial m4 drive but I'm not sure if the 'up to 95 MBps' speeds gonna be enough or if I should go with a Sandforce 60-80 GB drive.
I know that most SSD's strength is in smaller writes, not large sequential and that my Samsung HDD prolly has less write speed then that (or something just around it).

I'm asking here mostly because its hard to find reviews of smaller SSD drives on the internet - especially those that loose drastically their speeds with smaller size.

Any tips?

Thanks, ironhalik

 

[Emulex]

you need to bring some stats on what you do man.

most people do like 95% read 5% write at most otherwise SSD would never work.

 

[Soulkeeper]

as far as write speed goes that seems to be the weakness of the smaller m4/c300
the 64GB samsung 470 seems to be a more well rounded drive when it comes to the advertised write speeds

personally I'm trying to decide between those too ...
I think i'm leaning towards waiting for the 128GB M4 to go on sell

Generally speaking, I doubt most of us would notice the 95MB/s write on the M4 unless you plan on copying over many GB to it
it fits the role of boot drive

 

[ironhalik]

The drive would be in a typical desktop use. Some not that heavy visual studio/eclipse work - other then that web browsing, mail, your typical daily routine. No heavy video files or anything like that.

In the tradition of hijacking my own thread Ill also ask about the difference between Vertex 2 and the infamous Vertex 2 E. Are those smaller NANDs really that much of a difference?

Ok - found Agility 3 60GB at around the same price point - problem solved.
Then, if I go with the agility then the whole thread became pointless.
Sorry and thanks for the help.

 

[code65536]

I have the 64GB Crucial m4, and I think its write speed is just fine for general-purpose use.

 

[groberts101]

Stay away from the 80GB Sandforce drives. they are not all created equal and that drive(along with the 40GB version) suffers from poor IC/channeling configs and is the slowest of all.

As for the Agy3?.. better do your homework there as that drive is no barn stormer either. Also better research issues with the platform you are implementing it on due to many incompatability issues that are floating around with that drives controller. Just sayin', is all. Good Luck with it.

 

[ironhalik]

Well, every bit of info is valuable. Its quite hard to choose an SSD right now - at least a budget one.

 

[Thor86]

Choosing computer components can become a bit confusing, but do your research, and as you have done, keep asking questions and people with facts will help. People with opinions will just confuse you more.

If you are looking for a good budget SSD, look into the Kingston V100 series, as they are just re-badged Intels and will not have any issues with compatibility/performance in the budget sector.

 

[ironhalik]

I guess as Murphys incentive to finally buy SSD drive my main spinpoint f3 HDD just gave out on me (third samsung drive within a year - that's what you pay for buying drives that share their technological process with washing machines ;>).

So, those Kingston v100 are intel's G2 drives?

Maybe instead of roaming around blind Ill just ask - what would anandtech readers propose as a solid desktop boot ssd? Its going to run on a sata2 mobo with potential upgrade to sata3 soon, needs at least ~60gigs of user space, will work with general desktop use with no heavy lifting.

Sorry for question like that but after doing more research I'm finding just more factors to take into account and become more confused :>
In the end it would probably be easier to weight enthusiasts opinions.

Thanks, itonhalik

So far Im torn between:
-Crucial'sc300, m4 (both 64 gigs, so far seem the nicest),
-OCZs Solid 3 / agility 3 (60 gigs, a bit small, even smaller with the sandforce penalty)
-Intel's 320 80gb drive (nice price/size ratio here but somewhat slow in comparision)
-Samsung 470 (considering its supposed to supplement yet another failed samsung HDD... I have my doubts ;>)
Missed anything worth mentioning? What about Corsairs drives?

 

[Thor86]

So, those Kingston v100 are intel's G2 drives?

Pretty much. V100s support SATA TRIM command by the operating system (Windows 7) to clean up the garbage to keep write performance like new.

Maybe instead of roaming around blind Ill just ask - what would anandtech readers propose as a solid desktop boot ssd? Its going to run on a sata2 mobo with potential upgrade to sata3 soon, needs at least ~60gigs of user space, will work with general desktop use with no heavy lifting.

If you are planning on a SATA6Gbs motherboard you're wasting time looking at SATA3Gbs SSDs.

So far Im torn between:
-Crucial'sc300, m4 (both 64 gigs, so far seem the nicest),
-OCZs Solid 3 / agility 3 (60 gigs, a bit small, even smaller with the sandforce penalty)
-Intel's 320 80gb drive (nice price/size ratio here but somewhat slow in comparision)
-Samsung 470 (considering its supposed to supplement yet another failed samsung HDD... I have my doubts ;>)
Missed anything worth mentioning? What about Corsairs drives?

Out of this shortlist of yours, your best bet are the Crucials, but M4 being newer and bit faster for read/writes. Not sure what comparison you are doing with the Intel 320 80GB as it being "slow"?

 

[ironhalik]

Ah hell - everywhere I look I hear 'go with crucial'. There must be something to it ;>
After roaming the internets for two days, reading tons of reviews I hereby officially deem Crucial m4 64 gb as the best overall budget boot ssd drive. At least for june 2011. ;>
Thanks for the help guys.

 

[sequoia464]

Kingston at one point used the 80 and 40 gb versions of the Intel drives, but the V100 is a Jmicron controller. I don't think the Kingston/Intels have been available for over a year or so. Right now Kingston has the V100 and the V+100, the V+100 is a toshiba controller.

I have a couple of the 40 gb Kingstons - they were basically an Intel X25-V 2nd generation.

I also have a couple of the 96gb V+100's in raid0 - quite a bit slower than some of my other SSD's in benches, but actually seeing and feeling the difference is hard - at least with my usage.

 

[Emulex]

the x25-V kingston are solid. they are slow at write but damn fast (250mb/s) read and bulletproof. failure rates on the other kingston are quite a bit higher.

adata/dane-elec/etc rebrand intel too but might as well go direct for the superior intel service (advance next day air swap)

 

[ironhalik]

Im looking more for a >=64GB drive ;>
And Crucial uses the same gates as Intel (curiously they rate their NANDs lower - 3000 vs 5000 cycles) but different controller - still, at newegg, they get universally good feedback (regarding reliability).
But on the other hand - I always trusted Intel's products. Damn you! I already had chosen the m4 ;>

 

[Thor86]

Here are some reasons why I did not go Intel this round in the SSD game.

Their 320 series are SATA3GBs only. Their 510 series are using 34nm cells, and a Marvell controller. Is it me, or does this just seem backwards assed in comparison from their G2s?

If you don't care for these, then by all means go with Intel but they don't offer 64GB SSDs. Smallest are from 40-80GB (320s) and 120GB (510s).