Crucial might not be available here !Hi Jim,
Samsung 850 EVO and Crucial BX100 are solid drives as well. And they are much better than Kingston's V300 both in performance and reliability
Both goes around 65-70$ recently.
Looks great ! OCZ used to be fishy though , will consider :thumbsup: tysmTake a look at this one. It's within your budget and gets nice reviews. OCZ has come a long way since they were bought by Toshiba.
http://www.newegg.com/global/in/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820228121
And Guys, my mobo has SATA II ports, so the speed are not going to be that fast, so recommend accordingly
Dont worry about the empty space bro ! I can be happy even with a 60 GB primary partition (I don't install a whole lot of stuff )You can install whatever you want on it. Games don't necessarily run 'better', but levels load faster. You do need to maintain 10-20% empty space on the SSD for proper performance, however... keep that in mind. Don't go and pack it up with data and programs and expect it to perform properly... that's why so many recommend a minimum of a ~250GB SSD. A ~120GB SSD is fine for the OS and one or two games (depending on the size of the files.)
Hi Jim,
Samsung 850 EVO and Crucial BX100 are solid drives as well. And they are much better than Kingston's V300 both in performance and reliability
Both goes around 65-70$ recently.
So Sam is out of my budget, will buy what ever is good according to you guys and localy availableI agree with this and would personally go for the BX100 to avoid any possible future issues with the TLC NAND in the Samsung.
What's Sam?So Sam is out of my budget, will buy what ever is good according to you guys and localy available
So I would just buy 1 of these for starters, no matter how fishy
Transcend SSD370 or 340 128GB
or
Kingston SSDNow V300 120GB
or
Crucial M500 or MX or BX 120GB (if available)
or
OCZ Vertex (if available)
A lot of that is the OS' caching writes, and telling you it's done when it really isn't (but will be in just a couple seconds), and sending reads directly to the drive, in the meantime. If you don't need more than 100ish IOPS, and aren't latency sensitive, SSD v. HDD won't be huge, and is often overblown by us power users, that have fought for Pyrrhic victories over HDDs for many years, until SSDs. 75ish IOPS, without skyrocketing latency, is about the 5400 RPM threshold (though many will have problems performing even that well), and few 7200 RPM drives can do much more than 120 IOPS, without deep queues and high latencies. But, with many HDDs still being sold that are just damn slow, even compared to HDDs from 5-10 years ago, and SSDs not costing too much, for OS drives...also, a lot of support work for PCs is drive-limited, making SSDs godsends (5 minute AV scans or CHKDSKs, 20 minute 50GB PST repairs...).You have a recent hard drive that does close to 200MB and in most things you wont notice the difference. I also noticed no matter how fast everything is, other factors matter overall.. Transfer speed from a 200MB hard drive or even an SSD to another USB3 hard drive is sometimes 50MB, sometimes 100MB, depending on time of day. You notice it when you move 500GB of data.
Almost every connection with multiple speeds on the same physical connector does this. It's so that you can always plug a new device into and old system or an old device into a new system, and in many cases, run very old software on new hardware. If you watch it real-time, though, you'll see the effects of power saving, as much as anything else.The PCE lanes seem to drop to what everyone can agree on for some reason.
If Samsung or Hitachi and 2.5", it could just be strange (a few recent ones were clearly optimized for use as external drives, not OS drives, and have whacky performance). If any 3.5" drive, check partition alignment, if it's an AF drive. AS-SSD is a quick and easy way to do it. Usually it's writes that get slower, but it's all I can think of.My 3TB one gives read speeds of 50MB and write speeds of 100MB so whats the deal with advanced format sectors screwing up read speeds here?