Best SSD for under $200 and around 60-64GB

[zod96]

Looking for the best all around SSD drive for under $200 and in the 60-64GB range. Their are way to many to choose from so I am hoping for some input here...

 

[tweakboy]

Go with a good vendor like OCZ

Another good vendor is G SKILL

go and search for a 60gb ssd and only get one of these two brands. good luck

 

[FishAk]

The Vertex 2 is around $170, so that would be, hands down, the best 60GB drive under $200. I see Agility 2s for about 10 bucks less, but I wouldn't give up the faster random writes for just $10.

 

[poohbear]

OCZ Vertex 2 is the fastest SSD on the market and u can get it for $150 w/ mail in rebate from some sites. It has an exclusive firmware that allows it to perform on par w/ enterprise level SSDs, unlike other sandforce SSDs which perform standard 1200 controller levels (its hardly a noticeable difference, but you have peace of mind u got the best on the market). Google it.

 

[khon]

This is a pretty bad time to buy a value SSD, since the prices will be dropping quite a bit in just a few months when Intel and Micron release their new 25nm products.

 

[Zargon]

isnt that like q1 2011?

 

[FishAk]

I wouldn't say it's a bad time. Say the drive drops from $170 by 50 percent in the next 6 months- it will be $85, and you save $85. So in other words, you pay about 50 cents per day for six months for all that extra speed. Hmmm, can you get a beer for 50 cents?

 

[jjmIII]

Hmmm, can you get a beer for 50 cents?

I wish

60gb under $200 is easy...

I'd spend the extra $70 and go 120gb (I pd $315 for mine )

 

[khon]

I wouldn't say it's a bad time. Say the drive drops from $170 by 50 percent in the next 6 months- it will be $85, and you save $85. So in other words, you pay about 50 cents per day for six months for all that extra speed. Hmmm, can you get a beer for 50 cents?

It should be more like 3-4 months, but then the price isn't going to drop by 50 percent either, so point taken.

 

[poohbear]

OCZ Vertex 2 is the fastest SSD on the market and u can get it for $150 w/ mail in rebate from some sites. It has an exclusive firmware that allows it to perform on par w/ enterprise level SSDs, unlike other sandforce SSDs which perform standard 1200 controller levels (its hardly a noticeable difference, but you have peace of mind u got the best on the market). Google it.

i stand corrected, the crucial c300 64gb is the fastest SSD on the market and is CHEAPER than the vertex 2. It smokes the vertex 2 in read speeds (with SATA3 controllers), but in write speeds the vertex 2 beats it considerably.

Since this is a 64gb SSD, u're not gonna be writing much to it, ure gonna be doing mostly reading, so the crucial c300 is def the better option (if u have a sata3 controller).

 

[FishAk]

Yes, the C300 will push into the SATA III range, which is great if you have a SATA III hookup, and that part is good. It will be especially good when we can get a SATA III controller that actually works good.

However, when you look a little deeper, you will find the C300 lacking. Both the C300 and Vertex 2 use 64GB of flash. The Vertex 2 uses both 7 percent over provisioning, and an algorithm that lets it hold all the info on the disk- without writing it all. It's more than what I normally think of compression. With no over provisioning, or compression by the C300 controller, 20 percent or so needs to be left as unallocated space. This takes the C300 out of the running for a 60GB drive in real world use, as it can probably handle only about 50GB of data without loosing it's performance.

Additionally, there are reports of trouble with the FW on the C300, so I don't agree it's the better option. In fact, it's not even actually an option at all if you require a 60GB drive, as specified by the OP.

 

[zod96]

I went with the Ocz Vertex 2 for $159 at amazon...

 

[Voo]

With no over provisioning, or compression by the C300 controller, 20 percent or so needs to be left as unallocated space.

Huh? You seem to be mixing some things up. I've yet to see a review that shows that the controller handles less spare space better or worse than other modern controllers.
The only thing is, the first SSDs with it shipped with ~20% spare space - probably because they were more thought for enterprise useage.
By now there are also drives with the usual <10% spare space.. there's some performance loss, but the same holds true for every other SSD as well.

 

[FishAk]

You seem to be mixing some things up.

Well, I'm not an expert, so it's possible I don't completely understand.

In his review of Corsair's Force, Anand Lal Shimpi talks about SandForce's "DuraWrite" here. After reviewing the Agility 2, there was some discussion as to the effect of compression with regard to the Iometer test. So, when Anand reviewed the Vertex 2, he deployed a newer build of Iometer to test with true random bits.


Again, I'm not an expert, , and I didn't read this anywhere, so there's no link, but to me, if the SF controller can save space by not writing all the data, it can then use that saved space as spare aria. In other words, OS says: &#8220;Here SF, write down this 10Gb file.&#8221; SF says: &#8220;OK, no problem.&#8221;, but instead of writing 10GB, it only needs to write 7, since there was a bunch of it that was the same stuff over and over. That's a pretty hefty savings. SF doesn't tell OS about the saved space, and OS thinks 10GB were used up. Now, SF can internally allocate that saved 3GB to use as spare aria.

Of course, this assumes the guys over at SF programmed the controller to use that saved space. But they are some very smart guys, and I would be extremely surprised if they let that space just sit there.

 

[Voo]

Again, I'm not an expert, , and I didn't read this anywhere, so there's no link, but to me, if the SF controller can save space by not writing all the data, it can then use that saved space as spare aria. In other words, OS says: &#8220;Here SF, write down this 10Gb file.&#8221; SF says: &#8220;OK, no problem.&#8221;, but instead of writing 10GB, it only needs to write 7, since there was a bunch of it that was the same stuff over and over. That's a pretty hefty savings. SF doesn't tell OS about the saved space, and OS thinks 10GB were used up. Now, SF can internally allocate that saved 3GB to use as spare aria.

Yeah that's a common misunderstanding, but no, just because the controller only has to write 7 instead of 10gb of data (i.e. transfer 7gb from RAM to the SSD over the SATA link), it'll still need 10gb of space to save it, so only time but no space savings (and no wasted write cycles).. would make the controller even more complicated and would add latency to every read - although yeah I think someone will try that sooner or later as well. SSDs are still a rather new technology, so lots of possibilities to improve.

If you need a link for my above claim, I'm positive Anand mentioned that in his review somewhere - let's see if I can find it

"Reported capacity does not change. You don't physically get more space with DuraWrite, you just avoid wasting flash erase cycles.

The only way to see that 25GB of installs results in 11GB of writes is to query the controller or flash memory directly. To the end user, it looks like you just wrote 25GB of data to the drive.

Take care,
Anand"
Comments, p9 of the SF review article

 

[FishAk]

"Reported capacity does not change. You don't physically get more space with DuraWrite, you just avoid wasting flash erase cycles."

I read that differently. To me, that says that SF reports to the OS that it used 10Gb, and so you don't physically get any extra space from the compression.

But, if only 7GB are transfered from RAM, and the file results in only 7Gb worth of writes, than why would it take 10Gb to store the file? It can't write back, because it doesn't have the capaciter like the enterprise drives, so it seems it's truly only writing the 7Gb. If it's only writing 7, but reporting 10, I don't understand how there wouldn't be extra space left over for it's "personal use".

 

[Voo]

But, if only 7GB are transfered from RAM, and the file results in only 7Gb worth of writes, than why would it take 10Gb to store the file? It can't write back, because it doesn't have the capaciter like the enterprise drives, so it seems it's truly only writing the 7Gb. If it's only writing 7, but reporting 10, I don't understand how there wouldn't be extra space left over for it's "personal use".

Hmm yeah you could be right on that one - would actually make more sense that way, though shouldn't those SF drives work much better with low spare space than any other drive, since it would inevitably have lots of spare space in either case?

 

[Elganja]

here is a decent entry level one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc..._-NA-_-NA-_-NA

 

[FishAk]

here is a decent entry level one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc..._-NA-_-NA-_-NA

The SiliconEdge Blue uses the JMicron controller, with WD's custome FW. It's a very poor choise due to stuttering, and relatively slow overall speeds in it's price group. If you can get one for 20 bucks or so, you wouldn't feel so ripped off, but $150?

 

[Elganja]

The SiliconEdge Blue uses the JMicron controller, with WD's custome FW. It's a very poor choise due to stuttering, and relatively slow overall speeds in it's price group. If you can get one for 20 bucks or so, you wouldn't feel so ripped off, but $150?

it's 115 ... not horribly for an entry level ssd

 

[FishAk]

it's 115 ... not horribly for an entry level ssd

Perhaps you and I have a different definition of “entry level”.


To me, when someone buys an SSD, they are expecting a performance boost. So “entry level” means lower capacity, but still a significant performance gain, due to the increased price.


The SiliconeEdge Blue will stutter, so the performance gains are negligible. Anyone expecting a performance gain will be sorely disappointed.



You can buy a 1Tb WD Caviar Black for about $.08/Gb. Real world, the SiliconeEdge 64Gb drive only has 50Gb usable space. 50Gb of the Black = $4, so I'm being generous by saying the SiliconeEdge might be worth $20. 20 is much less than 115

 

[Elganja]

Perhaps you and I have a different definition of &#8220;entry level&#8221;.


To me, when someone buys an SSD, they are expecting a performance boost. So &#8220;entry level&#8221; means lower capacity, but still a significant performance gain, due to the increased price.


The SiliconeEdge Blue will stutter, so the performance gains are negligible. Anyone expecting a performance gain will be sorely disappointed.



You can buy a 1Tb WD Caviar Black for about $.08/Gb. Real world, the SiliconeEdge 64Gb drive only has 50Gb usable space. 50Gb of the Black = $4, so I'm being generous by saying the SiliconeEdge might be worth $20. 20 is much less than 115

I don't consider size as "entry level" rather the speed of the SSD. (i.e. X-25V vs X25-M, Agility vs Vertex, Agility 2 vs Vertex 2, Corsair Nova vs Corsair Force vs P series, etc...)

with that said... I did research the WD drive about stuttering after you mentioned it... and it does appear to be as bad as early SSD's and probably isn't worth the money.

 

[devilchrist]

Fry's has 128 Corsair F120 (120GB usuable space) for 249 after rebate? good deal if you ask me.