What is THE fastest ~64GB SSD? (For SRT)

[Blue_Max]

I remember reading several good things about Intel's SRT and still think it's a good way for me to go...64GB of super-fast (and reliable) SSD plus a 1-3TB drive will provide ample storage for movies and my few favorite games.

It's tempting to get a 480GB SSD but that's 3x the money and a LOT less storage. Yeah, it'd be nice, but I don't feel the value there...

So - what is theeee fastest, bestest 50-64GB SSD out there?

I should mention I need to purchase both SSD and hard drive, so whatever we decide on, I'll be buying.

(And if SRT is worse than the reviews have all said, now's a good time to chime in!)

 

[Sunburn74]

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. The difference in real world performance between the absolute fastest drive and the absolute cheapest modern drive drive is near nothing. Case in point I moved from a first generation intel x-25m to a vertex 3. Statistically the vertex crushes the older gen intel drive in everyway. In reality, I could not tell the difference.

In addition, the smaller the drive, the more the cost per gig rises. 64gb drives are the worst bargain of all. You'd be better off just finding a nice 120-250gb SSD made in the last 2-3 years, even a used SSD would be fine, and pairing it with with 1-2 tb of storage would be my rec.

 

[Blue_Max]

Perhaps - but consider that I need to buy two drives *anyway*. Frankly, I hate managing multiple drives.

64GB SSD for $70 plus $90 for 2TB of storage, SRT gives me a big speed boost in booting and my favorite 4-5 games/apps and a place to hold all my movies, etc. Plus everything's in one easy place.

...or $160 for 240GB of one SSD which would be unbridled speed for the few apps/games I can squeeze onto it, plus a $60-90 HDD on the side.

...or a $300 SSD drive actually big enough for ALL my games & apps... and I still need the HDD for the movies.


...unless SRT really doesn't work as reviewed, it sure seems to be the most cost-effective route to balance performance and cost. [shrug]

 

[Lil Frier]

For starters, do you have links to the products you're looking at getting right now? I ask because Newegg offers a 120-GB Samsung 840 SSD (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820147247) for $90, meaning you almost double the SSD storage for $20.

That, and I don't see anything other than a Caviar Green drive that you can get for $90 in a 2-TB model or a Toshiba with mediocre reviews (though that's only looking at Newegg). Depending on what you know you'll need for storage, you could go with a $70 WD Caviar Blue 1 TB drive (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...9SIA2W00YU4026).

You'd still be at $160 total, but you'd get a good deal more SSD storage.

 

[Cerb]

I'd get a cheap (as in on sale, or rebated) ~120GB SSD, today, even though Intel won't let you use it all for data. Up to about 500GB, current-gen SSDs increase performance. This is because as the flash gets denser, there are fewer dies to work with at lower capacities. This gen's ~500GB is like last gen's ~250GB. This gen's ~120GB is like last gen's ~60GB. And so on. Not long ago, ~30GB drives were more plentiful, relatively faster for what you paid, and the cost differences much higher to go to ~120GB. So, I would have been (and was) more optimistic about the benefits of a drive like the ReadyCache, Intel 525 30GB, 50GB Crucial cache drive, 60GB SF-2281 drives, etc.. They'll still work, but with newer-gen drives having so much better steady state performance, and $80-100 for ~120GB drives every day, I don't see the relative value in them, compared to newer bigger drives.

With SRT, you can take a drive you're already using, and add SRT to it, so there's no real harm in waiting for a good deal. In the weeks around BF, FI, good $60-75 ~120GB SSDs were abound. Chances are a few such deals will start occasionally popping up again, by mid/late January.

If you will get a ~60GB anyway, of those available, I would get a Sandisk Ultra Plus (not Ultra, not Extreme, etc.). It will have far better steady state performance than any SF-based drive of that size, and better than most last-gen drives, even though the fresh performance won't be impressive. But, typical cost is nearly as much as a ~120GB M500, Q, 840 Evo, or V300 (it and Intel's 530 are among the really good SF-based drives out there). It's about $65, and the ~120GBs start about $80, varying by where you buy, and thus if you have to pay sales tax.

<- got a ~500GB SSD, to not have to manage multiple drives (at least no more than was already the case, with a 1TB HDD and file server)

 

[Blue_Max]

Bah... I know SSD for OS and HDD for storage is the best and most popular choice, but cash is tight, while I still need at least one hard drive.

The 1-2TB SSHD is looking very attractive right now...

 

[Morbus]

Remember that you shouldn't use more than 85% of an SSD because of overprovisioning and whatnot, so those 64GB really become more like 55GB. It's really not that much at all. I recommend at least 120GB and you'll be strapped for room anyway. I'm very caucious about what I put on my EVO 250GB and I only have 135GB left (after over provisioning 15%). I only have one game on it but will be installing a few more next week (ROME II and Civ5) and I don't think I'll be nearly as carefree about space as I was on my old, still in use, 1TB HDD.

 

[hhhd1]

I am not sure if running TLC SSD for any cache would be a good idea, I guess it could run out pretty quickly in some cases.

Crucial M500 120GB is around $90 at some places.

 

[LoveMachine]

I am not sure if running TLC SSD for any cache would be a good idea, I guess it could run out pretty quickly in some cases.

Crucial M500 120GB is around $90 at some places.

I don't think it would be too much to worry about. The whole point of caching is to put the same data that frequently gets pulled from the HDD onto the SSD; write it once, and pull it multiple times from the SSD. Since it's the writes that kill the TLC (which isn't as big a deal as some would make it out to be), unless the OP is constantly changing games, I wouldn't think it would be too much of a problem. And if he/she is, that defeats the purpose of SRT.

 

[Cerb]

With the 840 Evo, I wouldn't even worry about TLC. The potential WA problems, and practical performance problems, that the 840 exhibited, do not seem to be present in the Evo, with its SLC-like caching. I wouldn't get it for caching to a RAID array, I wouldn't put on a machine churning VM IOs, etc., but for a regular desktop or notebook? It'll last longer than the rest of the machine, in all likelihood.

 

[Sunburn74]

I'm surprised you don't think you can fit 5-6 games on a 120gb sad. Heck even sky rim is only 6gb in size.

 

[Cerb]

I'm surprised you don't think you can fit 5-6 games on a 120gb sad. Heck even sky rim is only 6gb in size.

http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/
6GB? Only if you play it like you're on a console. Other mod-friendly games end up the same way, taking multiple times their original install size just in mods.

Then, by the time you've got a fully equipped OS install, the rest of the programs and such take up anywhere from 30GB to 60GB. It all adds up. For a light use notebook or something, 120GB is plenty, but it's not hard to fill up, either.

 

[Sunburn74]

Honestly if you have 30-40 GB to spend on games that should be plenty. Sure some games can be up to 35gb (max Payne 3 for sme random reason is this size) but the majority are in the 2-6gb range. There are also measures you can take to reduce OS size like turning off the page file and disabling hibernate and system restore. On my clean install doing that frees up 10-15gb right there I'd say. When you're talking a 120 GB sad it can become tight but for games a 250gb ssd should be OK and they can be found for less than 160

 

[RaistlinZ]

I think Battlefield 4 filled up at least 25GB on my system. 120GB drives are on the cusp of not cutting it anymore to put your OS and games.

 

[Cerb]

Morrowind, Oblivion, FO3, FNV, and Skyim total more than a 120GB SSD offers. Modded GTAs can also eat up 10-20GB (I'm just not a fan of the series ). It's just not enough, unless you stick with pure stock games. If you just play competitively, you can handle that, but they're still getting bigger over time (the DVD was previously a limit, but DD has removed that). If you play sandbox games, though, or games that had texture limits due to their console ports, mods are part of what make it worth having a nice PC in the first place, and they gobble up available capacity. For me, a handful of games is 100GB+.

Also, a clean install seems nice, but I don't wipe a PC when the install is just months old. The size, including all that makes its way into Program Files and Program Files (x86), grows, over time. It still gets big, with no hibernate file or page file. P.S. 14.6GB for Windows 7 Pro, with updates, old system restores removed, CCleaner run, no page file, and no hibernate file.

I'm not saying you shouldn't buy a 120GB SSD, if that's what your budget can handle, but it's better to spring for a bigger one, whenever possible, because, "oh, XGB is enough for Y," arguments always fail over time. We want bigger things or more things, over and over and over.

 

[Blue_Max]

I feel the same way about a 240GB drive... it'd be enough - but only just barely.

Spending $250-300 for a 480GB SSD hurts, even though the price-per-GB is half that of a 64GB drive - plus I'd still need the mechanical drive for storage anyway.

 

[Morbus]

And if you're modding games, you really want them on an SSD. I run skyrim modded on my EVO and it runs like a charm.

Same goes for Sims 3.