The cheap SSDs thread

Page 28 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 26, 2006
51,972
597
126
Aug 25, 2001
44,106
709
126
Nice, that 4TB Micron TLC SATA SSD for under $400 is tempting.
 
Nov 22, 2008
15,264
67
126
Prices had kinda been steady for the last few months...
 
Aug 25, 2001
44,106
709
126
I saw a Team Group GX1 960GB SATA SSD for $80 too recently.
 
Nov 22, 2008
15,264
67
126
Yeah, I saw a few other makes as well, seems like it's the new normal price of 1tb SATAs
 
Jul 15, 2000
18,006
121
126
Aug 25, 2001
44,106
709
126
are there huge differences in quality vs Samsung/Kingston/Crucial
There ARE differences, between vertically-integrated 1st-party SSDs (where they own the controller tech, as well as the NAND fabs, and can really optimize their drives using their own technology well), and those companies that basically farm out their drive production to 3rd-party no-name factories that buy NAND on the open market, and then use controllers and firmware from a controller vendor, as a package deal, and do the actual assembling, and then the vendor on Newegg slaps their label on it and sells it to customers.

Due to standardization on popular controllers, as well as the fact that they provide the firmware, generally, the quality on those drives is alright, enough to use, really, without too much of an issue. (Edit: With the caveat that those SSDs may not have the greatest performance or endurance compared to the 1st-tier vendors.)

I mean, unless you go with a REALLY "no-name" vendor (and I'm NOT talking about lower-tier branded vendors, like Team, Adata, Patriot, Mushkin, and the like), you're probably making a safe purchase these days.

The technology, on the whole, has matured GREATLY since 2013.

Edit: Wanted to add that Intel is a 1st-tier vendor like Crucial / Micron, and generally, even if they don't use an in-house controller, they still have a hand in the firmware development and debugging / testing. Intel SSDs are solid.

Edit: There may also be a difference in NAND quality between 1st-tier SSD vendors (that own or jointly own NAND fabs), and those produced by 3rd-party OEM SSD assemblers from open-market NAND. 1st-tier SSD vendors save the "Best" NAND for their own 1st-tier SSD mfg, and don't sell it on the open market.
 
Last edited:
Jul 15, 2000
18,006
121
126
There ARE differences, between vertically-integrated 1st-party SSDs (where they own the controller tech, as well as the NAND fabs, and can really optimize their drives using their own technology well), and those companies that basically farm out their drive production to 3rd-party no-name factories that buy NAND on the open market, and then use controllers and firmware from a controller vendor, as a package deal, and do the actual assembling, and then the vendor on Newegg slaps their label on it and sells it to customers.

Due to standardization on popular controllers, as well as the fact that they provide the firmware, generally, the quality on those drives is alright, enough to use, really, without too much of an issue. (Edit: With the caveat that those SSDs may not have the greatest performance or endurance compared to the 1st-tier vendors.)

I mean, unless you go with a REALLY "no-name" vendor (and I'm NOT talking about lower-tier branded vendors, like Team, Adata, Patriot, Mushkin, and the like), you're probably making a safe purchase these days.

The technology, on the whole, has matured GREATLY since 2013.

Edit: Wanted to add that Intel is a 1st-tier vendor like Crucial / Micron, and generally, even if they don't use an in-house controller, they still have a hand in the firmware development and debugging / testing. Intel SSDs are solid.

Edit: There may also be a difference in NAND quality between 1st-tier SSD vendors (that own or jointly own NAND fabs), and those produced by 3rd-party OEM SSD assemblers from open-market NAND. 1st-tier SSD vendors save the "Best" NAND for their own 1st-tier SSD mfg, and don't sell it on the open market.
Interesting, very interesting, at roughly $25-30 for a 500Gb drive, (let's call that typical for a workstation PC) I think rotating platters might be made obsolete like CD's have generally become.
 
Aug 25, 2001
44,106
709
126
Interesting, very interesting, at roughly $25-30 for a 500Gb drive, (let's call that typical for a workstation PC) I think rotating platters might be made obsolete like CD's have generally become.
I think at that price point (and we're almost there! - $38.99 retail FS for a 512GB lesser-tier SATA SSD recently), you will start to see a mass-exodus away from HDDs, at least in entry-level OEM PCs that previously shipped with 500GB or 1TB HDDs.

Part of the problem, although it's getting less so, is the "old codgers" (think, PHBs from Dilbert), that spec out mass PC purchases "by the numbers", and see 1000GB (1TB HDD), versus 500GB (SSD), and think that the higher number is better.

IMHO, and I've been practicing what I preach for quite a few years now, even with budget builds that I do - I use a (small, if necessary) SSD for the OS, and (optionally) a 1TB or 2TB HDD (usually for game storage).

On my personal rigs, I don't have overly-huge SSDs, actually, because I have (several) NAS units, that I use for backup (smaller primary SSDs make backups faster), and use large (8-10TB) HDDs for NAS bulk storage, for storing things. Sometimes I'll slap a large-ish HDD into a client box, if I want the ability to do local backups, or have a local archive, for downloads and ISOs and whatnot.

But back to the original point, the size of a primary OS SSD, that can stand alone, without a supplemental HDD installed, these days, for basic gaming and budget boxes, I think, a 500/512GB SSD fits the bill nicely. And at under $40, won't break the budget. Once they hit $30, OEMs will notice and switch.

And for NVMe PCI-E SSDs, I like the 256GB Patriot Scorch PCI-E 3.0 x2 NVMe drives, for $29.99 on sale, and the 1TB and 2TB Intel 660p NVMe SSDs (QLC on those), for $87 and $177 respectively. Performance isn't horrible with those QLC drives either.

PCI-E 4.0 x4 NVMe SSDs are finally hitting the streets too, but they carry quite a premium ($230-250 for a 1TB). Might be a while before I upgrade to those. Need a PCI-E 4.0 mobo, which means, an X570 AM4 board, and a 3rd-Gen Ryzen CPU. (3000-series Ryzen APUs are actually 2nd-Gen, and only a 12nm shrink of the original 2000-series 1st-Gen Ryzen APUs, and DO NOT support PCI-E 4.0, unfortunately.)

So, beware of 3000-series Ryzen APU combos with an X570 board, because if you get that combo, you WILL NOT be able to run a PCI-E 4.0 x4 NVMe SSD, at PCI-E 4.0 speeds, you will be limited to PCI-E 3.0 speeds.

However, conversely, if you have an existing B450 board, or X470 AM4 mobo, and drop in a 3rd-Gen (3000-series) Ryzen CPU, you might gain PCI-E 4.0 support for the primary PCI-E x16 slot, and the x4 primary NVMe socket. Depending on mobo support, wiring / layout, and testing. At least, there was talk of retrofitting PCI-E 4.0 onto existing X470 and B450 boards, that could physically support it and be tested for proper support. (Generally, means that the primary PCI-E x16 slot, and the primary PCI-E x4 NVMe socket, are wired directly to the CPU, without excessive trace length or PCI-E splitter/multiplier chips.)
 
Last edited:
Jul 15, 2000
18,006
121
126
I think at that price point (and we're almost there! - $38.99 retail FS for a 512GB lesser-tier SATA SSD recently), you will start to see a mass-exodus away from HDDs, at least in entry-level OEM PCs that previously shipped with 500GB or 1TB HDDs.

Part of the problem, although it's getting less so, is the "old codgers" (think, PHBs from Dilbert), that spec out mass PC purchases "by the numbers", and see 1000GB (1TB HDD), versus 500GB (SSD), and think that the higher number is better.

IMHO, and I've been practicing what I preach for quite a few years now, even with budget builds that I do - I use a (small, if necessary) SSD for the OS, and (optionally) a 1TB or 2TB HDD (usually for game storage).

On my personal rigs, I don't have overly-huge SSDs, actually, because I have (several) NAS units, that I use for backup (smaller primary SSDs make backups faster), and use large (8-10TB) HDDs for NAS bulk storage, for storing things. Sometimes I'll slap a large-ish HDD into a client box, if I want the ability to do local backups, or have a local archive, for downloads and ISOs and whatnot.

But back to the original point, the size of a primary OS SSD, that can stand alone, without a supplemental HDD installed, these days, for basic gaming and budget boxes, I think, a 500/512GB SSD fits the bill nicely. And at under $40, won't break the budget. Once they hit $30, OEMs will notice and switch.

And for NVMe PCI-E SSDs, I like the 256GB Patriot Scorch PCI-E 3.0 x2 NVMe drives, for $29.99 on sale, and the 1TB and 2TB Intel 660p NVMe SSDs (QLC on those), for $87 and $177 respectively. Performance isn't horrible with those QLC drives either.

PCI-E 4.0 x4 NVMe SSDs are finally hitting the streets too, but they carry quite a premium ($230-250 for a 1TB). Might be a while before I upgrade to those. Need a PCI-E 4.0 mobo, which means, an X570 AM4 board, and a 3rd-Gen Ryzen CPU. (3000-series Ryzen APUs are actually 2nd-Gen, and only a 12nm shrink of the original 2000-series 1st-Gen Ryzen APUs, and DO NOT support PCI-E 4.0, unfortunately.)

So, beware of 3000-series Ryzen APU combos with an X570 board, because if you get that combo, you WILL NOT be able to run a PCI-E 4.0 x4 NVMe SSD, at PCI-E 4.0 speeds, you will be limited to PCI-E 3.0 speeds.

However, conversely, if you have an existing B450 board, or X470 AM4 mobo, and drop in a 3rd-Gen (3000-series) Ryzen CPU, you might gain PCI-E 4.0 support for the primary PCI-E x16 slot, and the x4 primary NVMe socket. Depending on mobo support, wiring / layout, and testing. At least, there was talk of retrofitting PCI-E 4.0 onto existing X470 and B450 boards, that could physically support it and be tested for proper support. (Generally, means that the primary PCI-E x16 slot, and the primary PCI-E x4 NVMe socket, are wired directly to the CPU, without excessive trace length or PCI-E splitter/multiplier chips.)
What's dumb is if someone was say purchasing 5,000 workstations for a Co. they might look at the $5 per unit savings of using a regular HDD vs a SSD but do not take into account of the time not wasted waiting for boot or loading software. Factor that in and the extra $5 is a bargain.
 
Nov 13, 2001
14,446
6
91
Inland Premium 256GB 3D NAND M.2 2280 PCIe NVMe 3.0 x4 Internal Solid State Drive
$35.99 Shipped

It may not really be the price to GB's here thats the deal, but look at them read and write speeds!
  • Sequential Read/Write Speed up to 2900MB/s and 950MB/s respectively
  • Endurance up to 360TBW. Random Read/Write 4K: up to 150,000 and 220,000 IOPS
I bought one for my kids computer, but forgot it needed ddr4 ram, I got nothing but ddr3, so Im selling this and hes keeping his fx 8370 rig, and the rest off in the fsft forum. I havent opened it, but its been sooooooo tempting to just to try out them speeds :O

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07P6STQ54/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o07_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1
 
Aug 25, 2001
44,106
709
126
Err, including the price would be nice, @balloonshark . :p

Edit: Clicking on the link, it's $76.99 FS. Not bad, below $80 for 1TB. How soon until it hits $60, then $50, for a 1TB SSD?
 

balloonshark

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2008
3,508
216
126
Err, including the price would be nice, @balloonshark . :p

Edit: Clicking on the link, it's $76.99 FS. Not bad, below $80 for 1TB. How soon until it hits $60, then $50, for a 1TB SSD?
Sorry. I'll edit my post. I was stunned by the price :p

I don't know anything about the drive but I think it might be the lowest I've seen so far for a 1 TB drive.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS