What were the best SATA 3 Gbps SSDs?

[cbn]

What were the best SATA 3 Gbps SSDs?

-Intel 320 Series
-??
-??

Also what SATA 3gbps SSDs should be avoided? (For example, there was Jmicron controller that was notorious for pauses/stuttering.....I believe it was the Jmicron JMF602 EDIT: It was the JMF602)

 

[VirtualLarry]

The OCZ Vertex2, with 1st-gen SandForce controller, was a pretty decent SATA2 drive. Good performance, better than the Intel SATA2 SSD at the time, I believe. Though possibly not quite as reliable.

 

[XavierMace]

I got good use out of my Vertex2's. I think I've still got an Onyx or 2 in use around somewhere.

That said, I'm not sure where you are going with the question. There's no reason to be buying that old of an SSD at this point in time.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Avoid the Crucial V4.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6325/crucial-v4-256gb-review

That said, I'm not sure where you are going with the question. There's no reason to be buying that old of an SSD at this point in time.

You know... I think cbn just really likes talking about this stuff.

 

[cbn]

That said, I'm not sure where you are going with the question. There's no reason to be buying that old of an SSD at this point in time.

A while back I remember Newegg was selling the Intel 320 Series 160 GB for $29.99 free shipping and around this same time I recall the 16nm TLC 120GB SATA 6 Gbps drives were around $35 shipped.

So by going with a used Intel 320 Series a person would have gotten higher capacity (160GB vs. 120GB), better NAND (25nm MLC vs. 16nm TLC), and lower price ($29.99 vs. $35). The downside was used condition, only a 90 warranty and the slower interface (SATA 3 Gbps vs. SATA 6 Gbps). However, if the user's PC is SATA 3 Gbps then interface speed difference wouldn't matter.

EDIT: According to this post, the price on the Intel 320 160GB was $32 and the 120 GB 16nm TLC were going for $32. (120GB MLC Phison S8 SSD was also reported at $29.99)

 

[VirtualLarry]

Yeah, those were the days... (of cheap SSDs). I wish I could have afforded more than two of those Intel 320 Series 160GB SSDs, but alas, that's all I bought. I had a pair of 300GB Series 320 Intel drives, but I just recently sold them inside some Gigabyte Brix units. Should have parted them out and kept those drives. Ah well.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Yeah, those were the days... (of cheap SSDs). I wish I could have afforded more than two of those Intel 320 Series 160GB SSDs, but alas, that's all I bought. I had a pair of 300GB Series 320 Intel drives, but I just recently sold them inside some Gigabyte Brix units. Should have parted them out and kept those drives. Ah well.

When my great grandmother, who lived through the depression, died, they found a box in her basement labeled "string, too short to use".

When you die, will your family find a box labeled "Cool SSDs, too small to use?"

 

[VirtualLarry]

When you die, will your family find a box labeled "Cool SSDs, too small to use?"

LOL. Yeah, probably.

 

[cbn]

I was actually considering an 80GB for a Core 2 machine I basically plan on using as sort of a thin client.

But then I noticed there was even a 40GB Intel 320 Series.

Looking at the Anandtech review it was spec'd out at Random Read (up to 30K IOPs), Random Write (up to 3.7K IOPs), Sequential Read (up to 200 MB/s) and Sequential Write (up to 45 MB/s).

For comparison purposes here was the result of the 32GB Kingfast F6 (A dram-less MLC SATA 6 Gbps 2.5" SSD) Virtual Larry tested:

 

[Shmee]

I seem to remember the Samsung 470 was Sata II, and a pretty good one.

 

[XavierMace]

A while back I remember Newegg was selling the Intel 320 Series 160 GB for $29.99 free shipping and around this same time I recall the 16nm TLC 120GB SATA 6 Gbps drives were around $35 shipped.

So by going with a used Intel 320 Series a person would have gotten higher capacity (160GB vs. 120GB), better NAND (25nm MLC vs. 16nm TLC), and lower price ($29.99 vs. $35). The downside was used condition, only a 90 warranty and the slower interface (SATA 3 Gbps vs. SATA 6 Gbps). However, if the user's PC is SATA 3 Gbps then interface speed difference wouldn't matter.

EDIT: According to this post, the price on the Intel 320 160GB was $32 and the 120 GB 16nm TLC were going for $32. (120GB MLC Phison S8 SSD was also reported at $29.99)

If somebody is on such a tight budget that $20 is a deal breaker, I'd rather they get the new drive with a full warranty rather than a used drive with 90 days even if it's technically a better drive. There comes a point where you move from being economical to being cheap and being cheap just ends up costing more in the long run. An extra $20 (or less) gets you a new, faster drive with full warranty.

 

[cbn]

If somebody is on such a tight budget that $20 is a deal breaker, I'd rather they get the new drive with a full warranty rather than a used drive with 90 days even if it's technically a better drive. There comes a point where you move from being economical to being cheap and being cheap just ends up costing more in the long run. An extra $20 (or less) gets you a new, faster drive with full warranty.

I do agree that going too cheap can be a very bad idea. However, if the drive is destined for a computer that is not going to be used very much I would much rather have the 25nm MLC myself. (Reason: The 16nm TLC drives are known to have Read Speed degradation issues--> https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...x200-concerning-degraded-read-speeds.2467748/ )

 

[XavierMace]

Without knowing the usage of the SSD, you're taking a pretty big gamble. Small SSD's, especially MLC ones are popular with the home server crowd as SLOG's which beat the shit out of them. I've personally toasted two of them. You could end up with an SSD's that's had 90% of it's life used up. Degraded speed is still preferably to a dead drive.

 

[cbn]

Without knowing the usage of the SSD, you're taking a pretty big gamble. Small SSD's, especially MLC ones are popular with the home server crowd as SLOG's which beat the shit out of them. I've personally toasted two of them. You could end up with an SSD's that's had 90% of it's life used up. Degraded speed is still preferably to a dead drive.

Thanks for the heads up. I think inquiring the ebay seller on the usage and/or wear level would be a very good idea.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I haven't bought many, but of the refurb / used SSDs I've purchased:

Several OCZ Vertex2 50GB SSDs - Zero POH, assumed NoS
Three OCZ Vertex Plus R2 120GB SSDs - Zero POH, assumed NoS
Many Corsair Force LS 120GB SSDs - Zero POH, assumed B-stock
A pair of OCZ Vertex Plus R2 240GB SSDs - well used, one failed in a friend's PC some years later, after I gave it to him for free.
All of the Intel drives that I've purchased, maybe a few 80GB, 160GB, and 300GB, G2 and Series 320 drives (G3), most were less than 5-10% of their lifespan used up. Never got one that was used up even as much as 50%. Those drives were built like tanks.