Best Option for 1TB of SSD Storage

[figment_]

I'm looking to build a new PC in the next month. Some quick calculations show my expected storage needs on the PC to be between 600-800GB (plus a local file server). My goal is to avoid spindle disks entirely.

I have no need or plan to configure this as a single volume. Regardless of the method, the space will be carved up into volumes for the OS, apps/games, and extra local data (mostly to accommodate network sharing and backups and make OS reinstall less worrisome).

With that said, I see three main ways of doing this:

1. Samsung 840 EVO 1TB ($400-440): Has RAPID mode and Samsung's reputation... both of which seem to generate very mixed reviews.
2. 2 x Crucial MX100 512GB ($400-440): Not consistently better than 840 EVO, but usually cheaper.
3. Crucial MX550 1TB ($450): Very slightly better performance than the MX100, but more expensive.

Price doesn't seem to be a strong factor. The prices shift about frequently, as it seems Samsung has been forced to price-match the MX100 on a price-per-GB scale. Or perhaps that's just the retailers.

I can see pros and cons for going with the double SSDs. I would be unlikely to lose both disks at once, so there is less risk for loss, but that's mostly fixed by backing up the stuff I actually care about. Two disks might be able to do some old school load balancing (OS on one disk, apps on the other), but in general larger SSDs perform better than smaller ones, so the performance of a single disk might outweigh the benefit of splitting the workload.

Any experts out there want to supply your wisdom?

 

[Charlie98]

If you want to split your data up, I would just get a 256GB SSD for your OS and programs, and another SSD (sized appropriately) for your data.

At the consumer level... MX100 seems to have the advantage, price-wise. The M550 is a 'pro' level drive, comparable to the Samsung 840 Pro, for example. In day to day use I doubt you will see any difference in real world performance between a 'pro' drive and a consumer-level drive.

I would not (and don't on my 840Pro) use RAPID.

 

[Revolution 11]

1. Samsung 840 EVO 1TB ($400-440): Has RAPID mode and Samsung's reputation... both of which seem to generate very mixed reviews.
2. 2 x Crucial MX100 512GB ($400-440): Not consistently better than 840 EVO, but usually cheaper.
3. Crucial MX550 1TB ($450): Very slightly better performance than the MX100, but more expensive.

Any experts out there want to supply your wisdom?

The EVO's RAPID mode is pretty useless, you will never notice it outside of benchmarks and a few use cases. The EVO is still competitively priced but don't buy it for RAPID. I prefer the MX100 but if you need a good software package to manage your SSD(s), Crucial doesn't have any while Samsung's Magician is decent.

About losing both drives at once, it is more common than you think. If the flaw or failure factor lies with your local environment (lousy power, equipment problems, overheating), then it is likely that both drives will fail within a short time of each other.

How much of your data is installed programs, or games? I am assuming that your OS with some spare room is about 40 GB. How much data is from productivity software?

How much data is "cold storage", like disc image files, executables, archive files (.zip, .rar), music files, video files, or static documents like text and Word files? This type of data would be the least useful for SSDs unless your work involves manipulating these files on a daily basis.

As for buying time, unless you get a great deal during the holiday sales for SSDs, better to wait until you actually need the drives.

 

[creed3020]

One vote here for the 2xCrucial MX100 512GB. I would use one for OS/Applications and one for raw data like Pictures/Documents/Music/Etc/Videos.

I'm currently using one for all of the above and a 1TB 2.5" drive for Downloads/Videos/Backups/VM snapshots/etc. It's working well and MX100 is handling well with >60% of the space utilized.

 

[Elixer]

Frankly, you still need spindle disks to keep backups, though, I suppose you can use one SSD for backups.

It usually is better to have the OS on one SSD (or one partition of the SSD), so in case something happens, you can wipe and reinstall the OS without touching the rest of your data.

 

[figment_]

About losing both drives at once, it is more common than you think.

Agreed. I've got the most common stuff covered. The drives will be well cooled, likely powered by a SuperFlower or Seasonic PSU, in a system that is connected to an Active UPS.

How much of your data is installed programs, or games? I am assuming that your OS with some spare room is about 40 GB. How much data is from productivity software?

OS and OS-integrated software (drivers, core utilities) I estimate to max out at 60GB. The partition will likely be 80GB.

I think I estimated 300GB for total software storage. That includes a few large games, a few IDEs, a collection of various interpreters in different versions. I had another 100GB set aside for VMs and associated source .iso images. Finally, there would be around 100GB of photos, document scans, and local document storage.

I have a Linux file server nearby, with 3 TB of disk storage. That's where music, backups, long term documents, source code and software installers live.

These estimates are based on current usage.

As for buying time, unless you get a great deal during the holiday sales for SSDs, better to wait until you actually need the drives.

Given the estimates above, I'd get pretty close to filling a 512GB drive within a few months. There aren't any good price points between 512GB and 1TB. Hence the selection of 1TB.

It usually is better to have the OS on one SSD (or one partition of the SSD), so in case something happens, you can wipe and reinstall the OS without touching the rest of your data.

That's precisely the plan. The OS and everything that tightly integrates with the OS goes on the C: drive. Basically, that is the drive that gets wiped on an OS reinstall. It's a strategy I've used since 1998.

 

[infoiltrator]

today anyway
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-2-5-In...words=1+tb+ssd

http://www.amazon.com/Crucial-9-5mm-...words=1+tb+ssd

http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Ultra-...words=1+tb+ssd

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I'm lazy - I'd rather have one big drive than two small ones, so I'd probably go with the 840 EVO or the M550. (i.e., not the 2x MX100s.)

I'd wait for sales, though. Because I'm cheap and it's almost Black Friday.

Add $50 for a 1TB HDD you can keep everything backed up on.

 

[Essence_of_War]

I'm annoyed with Samsung right now after the Evo firmware, so I'd be inclined to go with, or at least keep an eye on, both the Crucial m550 or possibly the SanDisk Ultra II which I noticed isn't on your radar. It isn't a benchmarking powerhouse (certainly not when compared with SanDisk's beastly Extreme II and Extreme Pro) but it will perform respectably.

The Crucial m550 has been <$400 previously on newegg, and the Ultra II seems to be consistently at about that price point. Maybe pull the trigger if you see the m550 dip below $400, or if you see the Ultra II much lower than it is now?

 

[OlyAR15]

Just get the cheapest one available. Unless you are doing disk-intensive work, you will probably not notice any difference in performance. I prefer a single drive over two, mainly because it gives you more flexibility in partitioning the drive.

 

[Revolution 11]

+1 to the $50 1 TB hard drive for offline-backup idea.

 

[figment_]

+1 to the $50 1 TB hard drive for offline-backup idea.

I've already got a 3 TB fileserver connected via crossover cable, plus a 1 TB drive on my router which is used for the extra important stuff (ie: the stuff I want backed up in two places).

 

[h9826790]

I personally will go for the 840 Evo. Prefer 1 single large SSD. And the Evo has quite a good balance between price, size, speed, etc.

 

[tweakboy]

You know that 1TB is 1000k ... gl

 

[kasakka]

Does anyone know if new models and/or price cuts to current ones are on the horizon anytime soon?

I'm interested in upgrading to a 1TB SSD mostly for games. I currently have about 400 GB in game data on my HDD so 512 GB SSD might be a bit tight fit especially as new games keep increasing in size. I already have an SSD for OS (128 GB OCZ Vertex 3 for Win7 and a 160 GB Intel X25-M G2 for Hackintosh) but don't like juggling currently played games on them and back to HDD when I start something new.

Being in Europe SSDs are of course more expensive than over in the US.