practical performance difference b/w these two SSDs?

[Turbonium]

Sandisk SDSSDP-064G-G25
vs.
Sandisk SDSSDHP-064G-G25

I don't care about theoretical or on-paper performance values. I'm only concerned about perceptible performance differences (if any) doing basic tasks, like repeatedly opening and closing web browsers, IM programs, e-mail, and random small to medium-sized files (photos, Word files, etc.). The machine is only going to be used for basic tasks.

Also: Windows startup times are of some concern. If one drive is perceptibly faster, by how much?

Note: I'm assuming longevity for either drive is fine, and will far outlive the usefulness of the machine, even under heavy use (writes).

 

[mikeymikec]

Do you realise that your question is almost impossible to answer with the level of authority you're asking for?

Someone needs to have the same hardware as you and has tried both those drives.

Otherwise all people can do is look at the benchmarks and make educated guesses, perhaps if you're lucky then someone has one of those drives and can say "yep, it allows a system to perform for the basics as well as any other SSD I've seen".

Neither drive seems to mention whether it uses MLC or TLC, so the longevity question is also difficult to answer.

 

[mikeymikec]

However, "perceived performance" tends to constitute a significant performance difference (I'd say 1.5x for file read/write speeds), IMO. If you can find some benchmarks that suggest that much of a difference, then I think you have your answer.

Having said that, is 150MB/sec read speed compared to 300MB/sec going to be noticeable when starting Word?

 

[Turbonium]

Do you realise that your question is almost impossible to answer with the level of authority you're asking for?

Someone needs to have the same hardware as you and has tried both those drives.

Otherwise all people can do is look at the benchmarks and make educated guesses, perhaps if you're lucky then someone has one of those drives and can say "yep, it allows a system to perform for the basics as well as any other SSD I've seen".

Neither drive seems to mention whether it uses MLC or TLC, so the longevity question is also difficult to answer.

They're different generations of drives entirely afaik, and could have MLC vs. TLC or whatnot like you mentioned. I know very little about SSD drives or synchronous vs. asynchronous, etc.

There might be people on this forum that think of this stuff in their sleep, or have read tonnes of reviews and even some hardware experience firsthand. So I don't think I'm out of line for at least trying to ask, lol.

 

[Cerb]

The Ultra Plus is newer, definitely uses Sandisk/Toshiba MLC with SLC mode (nCache is their equivalent to Samsung's Turbowrite), and at 128GB and 256GB capacities, is pretty good. 64GB is quite slow, relatively, though.

But, while I could only find a single performance test for the other one, at Phoronix, it was pretty bad, like an older SF drive with async NAND, or the U1xx's/ReadyCache's controller with async NAND (I used to know what controller it used, but that's slipped out my head).

I'd take my caches with the newer Ultra Plus, were it me, though I've only used the 128GB and 256GB ones.