Mushkin SSD

[steelodon]

Mushkin Enhanced ECO2 MKNSSDEC240GB 2.5" 240GB SATA III MLC....any experience with SSDs from Mushkin??

 

[bbhaag]

I purchased the 120 version. Here are my results using AS SSD.

The original thread can be found here:http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2423541&page=2&highlight=.
Overall it's not a bad drive and loads Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen a lot faster than my Seagate hybrid drive did. I know it's not the exact same drive but I'll try and answer any question you have.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

More than a year ago I was rebuilding my home server, wanted to segregate the boot-system from the data, and do no less for shadow copies and swapfile. To that end, I picked up a Mushkin Chronos 60GB, thinking that I could use it for the latter items.

The boot/system files remain on a 120GB 840 EVO, but the Mushkin SSD just seemed like an unnecessary complication. So I've turned it into the caching SSD for a large HDD on a workstation.

I never really had a problem with it, but it was never deployed in a system where it had to be the fastest thing on the planet. I thought for sure that it benched better than the results shown here by another poster, but I really can't remember with any specificity. I only know that I wouldn't have purchased it if the spec sequential read and write rates weren't close to 500 MB/s

 

[bbhaag]

More than a year ago I was rebuilding my home server, wanted to segregate the boot-system from the data, and do no less for shadow copies and swapfile. To that end, I picked up a Mushkin Chronos 60GB, thinking that I could use it for the latter items.

The boot/system files remain on a 120GB 840 EVO, but the Mushkin SSD just seemed like an unnecessary complication. So I've turned it into the caching SSD for a large HDD on a workstation.

I never really had a problem with it, but it was never deployed in a system where it had to be the fastest thing on the planet. I thought for sure that it benched better than the results shown here by another poster, but I really can't remember with any specificity. I only know that I wouldn't have purchased it if the spec sequential read and write rates weren't close to 500 MB/s

The Chronos may have been a little faster but the OP is asking about the Enhanced ECO drive not the Chronos drive.
The ECO does bench over 500mb/s when reading compressed data.

Some of the guys in the thread I linked too said its this way because it uses async ram whatever that is.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I stand corrected . . . or at least calibrated. If the ECO lives up to its spec, then it's probably at the lower end of what we'd want to expect of SATA-III SSDs. Apparently there are performance variation between sizes of the same model. So you could make decisions about purchasing one by comparing prices to these marginally lower performance factors, etc.

The Chronos may have been a little faster but the OP is asking about the Enhanced ECO drive not the Chronos drive.
The ECO does bench over 500mb/s when reading compressed data.

Some of the guys in the thread I linked too said its this way because it uses async ram whatever that is.

 

[Subyman]

Keep in mind that the Eco uses a 4 year old Sandforce controller that degrades in performance as it fills. For those that have one, I would be interested to see full-drive performance.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Keep in mind that the Eco uses a 4 year old Sandforce controller that degrades in performance as it fills. For those that have one, I would be interested to see full-drive performance.

I have no particular opinion about Sandforce. But I was shopping for a low-capacity SSD some months ago, wanting to compare a yet-unknown brand called "EDGE" with a Patriot Blaze. EDGE had a review -- possibly PC World's -- suggesting that Sandforce still had a useful lifecycle -- lifecycle in general. The Blaze had a controller called "Phison."

As to a benchmark, I have no way to provide that for the Chronos I DO have, unless I want to pull it from caching use, format it and test it.