Which SSD?

[champion-7891]

Hi, I need an SSD for my primary boot drive. Games will also go into it (but I wont have more than 3 or 4 installed at a time).

These are the one available where I live with equivalent dollar prices stated:
Intel 520 120GB 150$
Corsair FORCE 3 GT 120GB 140$
Corsair FORCE GS 128GB 130$
Corsair Neutron 128 GB 140$

As you can guess, my budget is near 150$.

Which is the best option among these?

Edit: OS Windows 8 x64 Pro

 

[Topweasel]

The better option performance wise would probably be the 520 as it's a SF, but the only one out there with a home grown firmware.

But if I was sticking it in my system I would go with the Nuetron. I just don't trust SF enough to even go with one as highly rated and supported as an Intel one.

 

[Bubba77]

I just got the gs 360gb and windows 8 boots up rediculously fast. Admittedly this is my first ssd with my haswell build

 

[Cookie Monster]

No samsung 840 available (The 250gb is cheap!) ? Id recommend this for new buyers.

 

[tweakboy]

You have sexy rig ,,, match it with a sexy SSD like, Sammy 840 non pro or Crucial M500

If you look at amazon I betcha the 840 sells for 150 or under. gl

 

[Cerb]

Scratch the GT. It offers nothing over the GS--in any practical sense, anyway--but costs a bit more.

The other 3 are going to be more or less interchangeable. They all perform well, each better at one thing or another. The Intel 520 will be fastest here and there, the Corsair GS will be fastest here and there, and the Neutron will pretty fast all-around.

With regular desktop use in Windows 7 or newer, or a recent Linux, you'll never tell which is which outside of benchmarks. I would also get the Neutron, of those, but partly because, while it's not the fastest, it has few to no corner cases to worry about, performance-wise.

 

[corkyg]

Of the four listed, I would get the Neutron. What is it that limits your choice to those?

 

[champion-7891]

These are the only choice I have currently available. There are some Kingston drives too but I don't consider them compelling enough.

I would prefer reliability over peak performance (IMO it really doesn't matter if the sequential speed is 450 MB/s instead of 550 MB/s, random IO and good overall performance while maintaining reliability and data integrity is more important).

Given that, won't Intel make a better choice?

 

[Topweasel]

These are the only choice I have currently available. There are some Kingston drives too but I don't consider them compelling enough.

I would prefer reliability over peak performance (IMO it really doesn't matter if the sequential speed is 450 MB/s instead of 550 MB/s, random IO and good overall performance while maintaining reliability and data integrity is more important).

Given that, won't Intel make a better choice?

Again I would say no. Intel might in theory be a better manufacturer to stand behind and their SSD's being nearly bulletproof. The 520 is still a sandforce chip and while blazing fast has been nothing but issues for all other manufacturers. So while unlike all the other guys Intel is actually developing the firmware for the 520. It's still at its heart an SF. The Marvell chip in the Nuetron on the other hand has been nearly problem-less for every manufacturer that has used it. It also has a much more dependable performance since you don't have to worry about compressible data.

 

[Cerb]

The Marvell chip in the Nuetron on the other hand has been nearly problem-less for every manufacturer that has used it. It also has a much more dependable performance since you don't have to worry about compressible data.

The Neutron uses a LAMD controller (Hynix). TMK, Seagate is the only other consumer maker using it, ATM.

 

[Despoiler]

I have 2 Force GTs and an Neutron GTX. You won't go wrong with any of them, but I would get the Neutron because of the LAMD controller. It's the best controller of the bunch by a large margin.

Anand has an article that should help you decide.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6428/corsair-neutron-neutron-gtx-all-capacities-tested

 

[tential]

No samsung 840 available (The 250gb is cheap!) ? Id recommend this for new buyers.

How cheap? I need a cheap SSD as well. I'm at the end of my budget and the SSD is the last thing I have to purchase. .

 

[Topweasel]

The Neutron uses a LAMD controller (Hynix). TMK, Seagate is the only other consumer maker using it, ATM.

Could of sworn it was Marvell. Still the Lamd controller hasn't had any issues that I know of. I'll take an unknown over a SF chip. 4 years of nightmare problem after nightmare problem vs. 1 drive that has only been out a year and is priced higher limiting adoption. I have a feeling that Seagate has to be pretty sure on the LAMD to put it in their drives.

 

[champion-7891]

Assuming that I don't care much about peak performance, is there any significant difference between Neutron vanilla and Neutron GTX?

 

[Cerb]

Assuming that I don't care much about peak performance, is there any significant difference between Neutron vanilla and Neutron GTX?

No. The GTX just feature fancier faster flash chips.

 

[johny12]

Again I would say no. Intel might in theory be a better manufacturer to stand behind and their SSD's being nearly bulletproof. The 520 is still a sandforce chip and while blazing fast has been nothing but issues for all other manufacturers. So while unlike all the other guys Intel is actually developing the firmware for the 520. It's still at its heart an SF. The Marvell chip in the Nuetron on the other hand has been nearly problem-less for every manufacturer that has used it. It also has a much more dependable performance since you don't have to worry about compressible data.

The previous Intel 520 series is a Sandforce based SSD. The Intel 520 test model (240 GB ver) has faired well in multiple tests. Even a few older SATA 2 SSDs can hold in certain tests, such as loading Battlefield 3. However, buyers ready to make the switch from a standard HDD to a high-end SATA 3 SSD will find the Intel 520 SSD a delight.

 

[Topweasel]

The previous Intel 520 series is a Sandforce based SSD. The Intel 520 test model (240 GB ver) has faired well in multiple tests. Even a few older SATA 2 SSDs can hold in certain tests, such as loading Battlefield 3. However, buyers ready to make the switch from a standard HDD to a high-end SATA 3 SSD will find the Intel 520 SSD a delight.

That wasn't my point. It's Intel and they wouldn't release this half assed. But it is SF and it has been problematic in every other drive. So it's bit of a conundrum. You can get highend reliable SSD's without purchasing an SF controlled SSD, so why take the chance no matter who the drive manufacturer is. Maybe if it was a fantastic deal that would be one thing, but as a support technician, you take the safest bet over performance if you can get within 90%. The 520 is faster but also as a generality more expensive and its not light years ahead of the Nuetron, in fact its so close that I doubt people would realize the performance difference.

On top of that SF's strong point is in compressible data. If you deal with a decent amount of incompressible data than it performs like a 3 year old SSD. In the end I think most of the others are more well rounded drives.

 

[thomascwhitfield]

I have an Adata SP900 and Adata takes forever to make firmware updates available..like a year after all the other manufacturers....ridiculous....wish i knew that when i bought it

 

[johny12]

That wasn't my point. It's Intel and they wouldn't release this half assed. But it is SF and it has been problematic in every other drive. So it's bit of a conundrum. You can get highend reliable SSD's without purchasing an SF controlled SSD, so why take the chance no matter who the drive manufacturer is. Maybe if it was a fantastic deal that would be one thing, but as a support technician, you take the safest bet over performance if you can get within 90%. The 520 is faster but also as a generality more expensive and its not light years ahead of the Nuetron, in fact its so close that I doubt people would realize the performance difference.

On top of that SF's strong point is in compressible data. If you deal with a decent amount of incompressible data than it performs like a 3 year old SSD. In the end I think most of the others are more well rounded drives.

To me a SSD needs to be reliable & also needs scale up to meet my current needs. The only SSD which seemed satisfactory to me was the sandforce based Intel SSD. They have tremendous workpower & outclass in all areas like encryption,durawrite,trim,incompressible data handling,reliability,productivity to name a few. Please dont trust me unless you try & confirm these Folks Dont just get carried away by others experiences alone.