SSD what would you do?

[AnemicOak]

Ok, I know the basics of SSD but that's about it. I'm quickly learning more reading Anand's articles too.

Next week I'm doing the first build I've done in years...
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2068969

I think I want to add an SSD into the mix. Was thinking the Intel X-25M 80GB, but think I might like a bit more space (although 80 should be plenty really). I saw the OCZ Soild 2 120GB for $290 and thought maybe that would be a better option size wise (but I can't find any reviews).

At this point my brain is swimming with controllers and TRIM and about 100 other new terms so I could use a bit of guidance. I'm not sure how to go about comparing them.

The $290 ($300) pretty much tops out what I'm willing to spend at this point.

Intel, OCZ or???

TIA

 

[MisterDonut]

Not sure what your rig uses are, but for typical consumer use, 80gb is plenty for OS + a few apps. Games don't benefit significantly from SSD's. If you wanna drop that much money on an SSD though, wait for AT's benches on the Vertex 2 (I think the Agility 2 is already up). Uses new SF tech, which seems to have pretty good first impressions on me. I'll read more in detail later.

 

[superccs]

If this helps. I have recently acquired a 60Gb OCZ Agility for my main gaming pc and am very happy with its performance so far. I had a 74Gb raptor so the drive space difference is almost the same. I maintain about 20-30gbs free depending on how many games I have installed. Currently I have TF2, Heroes of Newerth, and Left for Dead installed with about 30gbs left to spare (includes standard mix of office, photoshop, adobe junk, browser, and etc apps). The price was $140, TRIM enabled, no problems so far. If you could find decent drive, for a price you can live with that has a decent performing controller, go for it. The agility 60Gb in my case was the best deal for what I needed, and is recommended to anyone reading this.

You should most likely come across something in the $200 range for a 80Gb Intel drive or $280 for an OCZ 128Gb Agility.

 

[slightlyhuman]

i'm curious as well. i have a q9400 at 3.4, 6gb ram, gtx 260 and regular sata drives.. would i notice a decent performance increase with adding an SSD? space isn't a big deal to me as i only have 1 or 2 games installed usually.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

I think they're gonna drop in price drastically, so I didn't want my friend to spend much and grabbed him the 80gb Intel.

 

[RU482]

I've tested a probably 30 different models of SSDs over the last 4 years. I work for a small OEM, and have tested a wide variety of SSDs for our product lines.

At the end of the day, the Intel SSD is still the most compatible, trouble free device I have dealt with. The Indilinx Based SSDs have come a long way (FW v 1916), but it's still fragmented since each OEM (OCZ, Supertalent, ect) can implement their own enhancements into the firmware. I'd rule these drives a close second.

 

[linster]

If budget is firm, I would go with the 120 Solid 2. I had the 80 Intel and subsequently upgraded to the 160.

 

[Hacp]

For a laptop go with the bigger drive. For a desktop, go with the smaller one. At least that's my philosophy.

 

[flamenko]

I posted this on another thread but it applies here as well:

The best drive for you at this point is, in fact, the Intel. It is an excellent choice and when comparing it to the others (excluding the new Marvell and SandForce controllers), one needs to understand exactly why it is the choice of many and has, in fact, become the baseline of all ssd benchmarking as of late.

The Intel is phenomenal at small 4kb random reads and writes whereas the others are not (excluding Marvell and Sandforce controllers). These random reads and writes are the most important to the consumer because they are what is going to bring you the LARGEST VISIBLE PERFORMANCE difference to a typical system. This is simply because your OS and applications rely on alot of small dynamic link libraries and similar files to start and run quickly. These are picked up mainly through your 4kb small random reads and writes.

Manufacturers have never liked to advertise this point because they want to showcase the highest number which is that of the large sequential reads and somewhere around 260MB/s for a typical ssd nowadays. People gasp in amazement at this mind boggling speed yet don't realize that most will ever only use this speed less thatn 1% of the time on their system and it doesn't account for visible performance unless you are reading.writing very large multiGB files.

It looks good however right?

Here is something of interest for you:

Top 5 Most Frequent Drive Accesses by Type and Percentage
-8K Write (56.35%)
-8K Read (7.60%)
-1K Write (6.10%)
-16 Write (5.79%)
-64K Read (2.49%)
Top 5 account for: 78.33% of total drive access over test period
Largest access size in top 50: 256K Read (0.44% of total)

Now having said all of this, out comes the new Crucial C300 and OCZ/Crucial/OWC drives with new controllers from Marvell and SandForce.

Would i suggest these if you had the big bucks for them? Nope...not yet. Both Intel and Samsung have something in common that many others dont have as of yet which is customer confidence and reliability. They haven't suffered large percentage failures/stuttering/pausing as seems to be a common thread with most others as they try to climb to top of the hill.

We have seen one of the first problems in the JMicron 602 stuttering from MANY manufacturers that used that controller to the present C300 failures which seem to be popping up every day and now there are even a few failures from the SandForce...

Myself, If I was buying today I would look for reliability from a proven controller at a great price and the best benchmarks....this is the Intel in the end and shown in most reviews...

Check the bottom right of The SSD Review and their are a few benchmark results there to assist.