• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

SSD value

Which is the best value (performance for price)

  • Extreme Pro

  • Ultra II

  • MX100

  • 460A

  • 850 EVO

  • Wait for MX200

  • None of the above

Results are only viewable after voting.
C

coz715

Junior Member
Looking for a good SSD for a reasonable price. I keep my HD nice and tidy and under 120gb used. Mainly I use my laptop for light gaming, internet and simple photo viewing/editing. Do you recommend:

Extreme Pro 240gb - $150
Ultra II - $110
MX100 - $109
850 EVO - $134
Vertex 460A - $125
Or should I hold out for the MX200
 
i have several MX100's and they are great for the price.

under most situations you will not notice a speed difference between any of the SSD's you listed outside synthetic benchmarks.

And if ur located in the US, u will not be disappointed by crucial's RMA system which i have used a couple times on RAM.
 
aigomorla said:
i have several MX100's and they are great for the price.

under most situations you will not notice a speed difference between any of the SSD's you listed outside synthetic benchmarks.

And if ur located in the US, u will not be disappointed by crucial's RMA system which i have used a couple times on RAM.
Click to expand...

Would the M550 be a better buy at $125. I am sticking with the 256gb versions?
 
Given the choice between the MX100 and the M550... I'd take the M550, and, in fact, I did. I would also stay at 256GB... some of them take a serious hit in write performance at the 120GB size, I know my M500 did.
 
Charlie98 said:
Given the choice between the MX100 and the M550... I'd take the M550, and, in fact, I did. I would also stay at 256GB... some of them take a serious hit in write performance at the 120GB size, I know my M500 did.
Click to expand...

There was once an opinion that "smaller" offered more performance, but apparently this has changed.

They're still expensive little buggers, though. Well -- you might get 256GB for just over $100. There was once a time when you would pay maybe $75 for a 200GB HDD, but those days are gone, gone, gone.

The latest rig (with 3-year-old processor and board) isn't an "experiment" with "new features." I need speed, so this time I limited my boot disk to a 256GB SSD. I can cache a larger HDD with a second 60GB SSD. I'm installing the games on the latter. The cache hit-rate is 98%.

A person could invest in a bigger SSD; he/she could cut power consumption a tad further with an absence of any HDD. Or he could seek little slivers of extra performance with various configurations like an SSD RAID0, spending more. For me, this is as good as it gets. I don't need any extra little "slivers."
 
BonzaiDuck said:
There was once an opinion that "smaller" offered more performance, but apparently this has changed.
Click to expand...

It's still true to some degree. Once you go high enough in capacity, the performance decreases because the controller has to track more LBAs, which requires larger caches and more processing power. Each controller has its own sweet spot, so there's no general rule here, but e.g. SF-2281 can only go up to 240GB without a performance decrease.
 
well, i have the cheapest SSD you can buy, and it works perfectly. i dont think IRL you would be able to feel the difference between 500mb/s and 550m/s..
 
Hellhammer said:
It's still true to some degree. Once you go high enough in capacity, the performance decreases because the controller has to track more LBAs, which requires larger caches and more processing power. Each controller has its own sweet spot, so there's no general rule here, but e.g. SF-2281 can only go up to 240GB without a performance decrease.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that about the big cap SSD's... I knew the performance leveled off at a certain point, but not necessarily decreased. Interesting....
 
Easy pick in my eyes:
19nm Toshiba NAND -> Vertex 460A

If you want to go even lower in price, you should have included also the Arc 100 240GB. It is the same price as the MX100, sometimes cheaper with rebates, and has superior NAND.
 
alexruiz said:
Easy pick in my eyes:
19nm Toshiba NAND -> Vertex 460A

If you want to go even lower in price, you should have included also the Arc 100 240GB. It is the same price as the MX100, sometimes cheaper with rebates, and has superior NAND.
Click to expand...

The ARC 100 is superior to the MX100, the 460a or both?

I saw the Egg has the 460a for 109 and you get a $10 rebate card
 
Depending on daily prices, the Sandisk Ultra Plus and X110 can still be good values, too. They won't win e-peen contests (4 channel controller, so limited peak bandwidth/IOPS), but for daily use drives, they're excellent. I've been seeing them going for $80-100 for 256GB, lately (the X110 is an OEM variant of the same drive as the Ultra Plus). I wouldn't be surprised if they are trying to dry up stock of them for the Ultra II to replace them, but that doesn't make them any worse drives, just not the newest.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

Generally you would move files not needed or needed when the SSD reaches 90% Also Nobody has mentioned Mushkin...
I have two and 7 Crucial. Also Do NOT DEFRAG a SSD!!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top