[TR] Why you don't need a high-end SSD for almost any desktop workload

[PhIlLy ChEeSe]

technolust! :thumbsup:

"STATE OF THE ART" them is some sexy words!

 

[Data-Medics]

What the hell is "pro-quality", beyond marketing? It never ceases to amaze me that the people who _should_ have greatest ability to weed out the marketing bullshit are also the ones most susceptible to succumbing to it.

The real difference between the PRO line SSDs and the more budget line has less to do with speed as it does with memory quality. You may not see a huge speed difference from a budget to PRO for desktop computing. However you will see it in the longevity of the SSD. The memory used can sustain a much higher level or usage before wearing out.

Given that many desktop office computers get used for 7-8 years, it may be worth the extra $20 in the long run.

 

[Charlie98]

Sometimes it is not about NEED but more about want, even if there is no perceptible difference.

I guess that's me... 2 of my 3 main computers have 'Pro' drives, simply because I was hoping they will be more reliable in the long run...

The real difference between the PRO line SSDs and the more budget line has less to do with speed as it does with memory quality. You may not see a huge speed difference from a budget to PRO for desktop computing. However you will see it in the longevity of the SSD. The memory used can sustain a much higher level or usage before wearing out.

...the lie was put to that, at least in my case, when my 840Pro died on me in less than a year. After that, with the exception of the M550 (it was on sale at the time) I pretty much just get consumer-level drives while focusing more on manufacturer (for me, that means Intel or Crucial) rather than 'Pro.'

 

[Harry_Wild]

High end is usually better! 25% more in cost then economical version; it build more for reliability and through put.

I own both and now will buy the Pro version.

 

[Data-Medics]

If your SSD died within a year it's most likely a failed controller chip. Unfortunately they are all prone to that type of failure PRO or not.

However the memory degradation is something we'll all start seeing in about 5-6 years when suddenly your capacity starts to rapidly shrink. That's when the PRO ones will start to shine over the EVO and others. Their memory NANDs can just handle a lot more IOs before they begin to degrade.

 

[Data-Medics]

Here's some articles where they ran endurance tests on different SSDs to see how much data rewriting they can handle before failing:

http://techreport.com/review/24841/introducing-the-ssd-endurance-experiment
http://techreport.com/review/27062/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-only-two-remain-after-1-5pb
http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead/3 (final results)

Shows why the PRO is better, if you plan to use it heavily for a long period of time. If you're just using basic desktop computing office software, it may never matter. But if you do video editing or something like that, it probably will.

 

[R0H1T]

The real difference between the PRO line SSDs and the more budget line has less to do with speed as it does with memory quality. You may not see a huge speed difference from a budget to PRO for desktop computing. However you will see it in the longevity of the SSD. The memory used can sustain a much higher level or usage before wearing out.

Given that many desktop office computers get used for 7-8 years, it may be worth the extra $20 in the long run.

I'd argue that the PRO line today refers to data center/server grade SSD's like the SM951 & the 750. PCIe/NVMe drives will remain the top end of this market for some time to come, also there still aren't very many consumer or professional level applications that can make use of such insane speeds that these drives offer, not unless you're dishing out multiple I/O requests over a server housing one of these.

I think the high end drives like the 850 PRo or Extreme Pro can safely be relegated to a second tier as the performance has truly moved to another bracket with the advent pf PCIe/NVme drives

 

[Ketchup]

If your SSD died within a year it's most likely a failed controller chip. Unfortunately they are all prone to that type of failure PRO or not.

However the memory degradation is something we'll all start seeing in about 5-6 years when suddenly your capacity starts to rapidly shrink. That's when the PRO ones will start to shine over the EVO and others. Their memory NANDs can just handle a lot more IOs before they begin to degrade.

And this is a good reason to NOT buy a pro version for personal use. Those buying PRO may have a long cycle in place for drive replacement, but most consumers would be looking at a larger/faster/cheaper SSD within a 5-6 year time frame.

 

[Charlie98]

And this is a good reason to NOT buy a pro version for personal use. Those buying PRO may have a long cycle in place for drive replacement, but most consumers would be looking at a larger/faster/cheaper SSD within a 5-6 year time frame.

Bingo. And I acknowledge that even in my case. The only place I could see a Pro drive in a consumer level PC is because of a substantially better warranty at a reasonable cost differential, similar to the WD Black vs WD Blue, etc.

 

[Cerb]

The real difference between the PRO line SSDs and the more budget line has less to do with speed as it does with memory quality. You may not see a huge speed difference from a budget to PRO for desktop computing. However you will see it in the longevity of the SSD. The memory used can sustain a much higher level or usage before wearing out.

Given that many desktop office computers get used for 7-8 years, it may be worth the extra $20 in the long run.

Except that you'll need 10-20 years to wear out crappy Sandisk TLC, if you have some bad programs that write too much. Workload matters, and regular office type stuff, or gaming, really doesn't cause much IO. Even w/ VMs, my work SSD doesn't even get 5GB/day host writes, on average. It's an 840 Pro, but an Ultra II would be just as good. By the time it gets even 1% rated wear, the entire PC will be needing replacement.

OTOH, I put enough wear during nights and weekends on my gaming PC's SSD, that any SSD, MLC or TLC, that couldn't maintain decent IOPS without lots of free LBAs, or that will slow down while writing a lot, would be unacceptable. If I worked from home, and used it day min and day out, anything TLC would be a joke (my average host writes would easily be over 50GB/day, if that were the case).

 

[BonzaiDuck]

If removing heat is silly, consider me Miles Davis.

I've been building systems for "performance" probably since 2004; for "general use" since around '93; and kloodging together parts or making hardware-mods -- since mid '80s.

I suppose I could say I only "discovered" this in the most recent seven years or so. But such a belated realization is humbling: there may be an optimum -- including power-draw, dBA/noise and airflow variables -- for a number of fans, size of fans and ultimately -- the size of the box. More specifically, there would be different "optimums" for water versus air-cooling.

Now -- whether there is some "optimum" on the three axes ("X Watts, Y noise and Z CFM) or 4-th variable (case volume) -- if there is a maximum CFM beyond which no further gains can be made in the cooling system's performance, then you still want to minimize wattage, minimize noise etc. etc. for that level of airflow or threshold.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Bingo. And I acknowledge that even in my case. The only place I could see a Pro drive in a consumer level PC is because of a substantially better warranty at a reasonable cost differential, similar to the WD Black vs WD Blue, etc.

+1 and thumbs. On the other hand, a lot of folks such as I put off buying capacity SSDs for a long time until the capacities available seemed "optimal." I'm not sure when I bought my Pro drive that the EVOs were all that much prevalent.

Figure even today, you'll pay between $150 and $200 for a 500GB SSD, but you might pay $50 to $70 for a 500GB HDD. I'd want at least one such drive in every system -- maybe half that size for a laptop used with business apps.

Lifespan is no less an important consideration among options and prices .. .

 

[Harry_Wild]

What the hell is "pro-quality", beyond marketing? It never ceases to amaze me that the people who _should_ have greatest ability to weed out the marketing bullshit are also the ones most susceptible to succumbing to it.

Pro-quality is usually 40% more in price! Nicer label on the outside and newest technology inside. $150 econo model; pro is $210.

But it is faster and has better warranty! So I always go for the Pro model! Most time like the look of the label much better too!

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Then there's the "boot-time" measuring stick. I could never understand why boot time means anything to a computer user. But in my professional working life, and my retired life -- still -- the systems I use most frequently can run a week or two 24/7 between restarts or boot-ups. I don't freaking CARE (!!) how long it takes to boot up, as long as the delay isn't a sign of impending hardware failure, OS corruption, hardware confusion.

I find that metric important to me for laptops and systems that get used occasionally.
Heck, it's rendered hibernation obsolete. I'd rather boot up from scratch than deal with funky stuff when docking / undocking the laptop at work, etc.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I find that metric important to me for laptops and systems that get used occasionally.
Heck, it's rendered hibernation obsolete. I'd rather boot up from scratch than deal with funky stuff when docking / undocking the laptop at work, etc.

Now, that's a penetrating response. I can understand completely.

On "Hibernation," it was a feature for which I was Johnny-come-lately on my desktop systems.

I've had PSUs fail because I left them in "sleep" mode too long between wake-ups. Nowadays, I set the systems to sleep after two hours awake, and arrange for them to hibernate an hour after that.

It may be that SSDs are "unnecessary" for "desktop workload," but I could still feel the difference even for an HDD cached with a small SSD in ISRT. Now that all our systems have an SSD standalone as a boot disk, I may have use for an auxiliary HDD, but I won't revert to an HDD boot-system disk.

 

[Essence_of_War]

It may be that SSDs are "unnecessary" for "desktop workload,"

Who claims this?

The whole point of my OP was that spending extra money for a "pro-quality" branded SSD gets you very little above and beyond an ordinary SSD in most desktop workloads. I have never claimed, and would not care to argue, that you shouldn't get an SSD at all.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Who claims this?

The whole point of my OP was that spending extra money for a "pro-quality" branded SSD gets you very little above and beyond an ordinary SSD in most desktop workloads. I have never claimed, and would not care to argue, that you shouldn't get an SSD at all.

Funny. I must've misunderstood. I'd otherwise agree about buying "premium" or "Pro." I tend to have a fetish for "best review score." My dentist uses Kingston, Sandisk, etc. without any complaint.

Since my one and only Sammy 840 Pro, I've been very pleased with the Crucial product. I've got a Mushkin and Patriot respectively used as caching drives.

 

[Essence_of_War]

Hmmm...I didn't mean to give people that impression. I thought I'd picked my words in both the title and the initial quote selection carefully enough to make my point clear.