SSD Choice Dilemma

Hey Notebookreview forum members, I am hoping that with your opinions that I will be able to choose an SSD appropriate for me.

I am looking for a general-use SSD to improve boot times; in other words, I am not looking for the most expensive nor the fastest SSD on the market. For capacity, I am looking for 480 - 512 GB.

Upon searching for quite some time, I narrowed down some possible options.:

1. OCZ Arc 100 series (480 GB)- the cheapest option I can find, costing $179. While it's great that it's cheap, the problem is that the reliability of the drive varies among users, and the power consumption is relatively high for an ssd, though considering my battery life it shouldn't be a big deal.

2. BX100 (500 GB, $206 or 200 in rare cases)- Relatively good performance and the price is not horrendous, but doesn't stand out from other drives.

3. 850 Evo (500 GB, $229 or 219 if on sale in rare cases)- Good performance and apparently good reliability, but given how people here are skeptical about Samsung and TLC, I'm not too sure what to think about this drive.


These are my main options- I have found other drives for decent prices, but it's more than what I would like to pay for. So I am hoping you guys can narrow down my options and tell me what SSD I should get. Any other recommendations would be great.


Have a great day and thanks for reading.

 

I have the Samsung 850 EVO M.2 SSD on my laptop (it's just the same as the regular 2.5 inch ones), it's fast and reliable. I am not sure why you are skeptical about Samsung, but as for the TLC issue if you are wondering, there's no need to worry. I remember reading a review on durability on the Samsung 840s (which is also TLC based), it can go to something like several hundred Terabytes in writes before it starts degrading performance. So, unless you write (or torture) your SSD 24/7/365, I don't see TLC being the problem here.

Plus, they have a 5 year warranty (or 75TB/150TB writes depending on size of the SSD), I am pretty sure you will replace it with an another SSD before it even dies...

 

I've got a 20 month old 840 EVO mSATA which has been in everyday usage and has reached 12.5 TBW (Terabytes written) - I haven't set out to torture it to death. I doubt if I will wear out the SSD before it becomes obsolete. The drive seems to be relatively frugal on power consumption which is usually a consideration for notebook users. I would not hesitate to buy another Samsung SSD.

I've also got a Crucial M550 in another notebook that is running OK and which doesn't suffer from the high idle power consumption that afflicted the previous Crucial SSDs that I have encountered and I wouldn't hesitate in buying another Crucial SSD.

John

 

TLC P/E is not a problem for consumer loads. Actually the whole SSD endurance thing has been blow way out of proportions.


However, if you want the data to stay safe for long, TLC does have the habit of leaking charge too quickly. The Samsung TLC slow read on old data issue surfaced a while ago was caused by this effect as well as poor leakage estimation in the firmware. They kinda improved the situation by fixing the firmware, but the inherent physical limitation is still there.

SLC drives don't have to worry about this at all. 2bit MLC drives face the same problem but to a much lesser extent.

 

OCZ has a horrible reliability record in comparison to Crucial/Micron & Samsung, so I'd stay away from the first one. Either of the second or third should work from a reliability standpoint. Samsung's 840 EVO (using small-node planar NAND) had read speed problems with older data, but that shouldn't be a problem with the 850 EVO due to larger-node NAND used (in stacks), which is considerably more resistant to data corruption. The 850 EVO is likely to be a bit faster than the Crucial drive listed, as well.

 

Gamethread, you could also try Biwin, or some other less-known manufacturer, like Kingfast or Kingspec. Biwin will definitely be cheaper and better than OCZ.

 

Caution: I'm going to try to make you want more from your SSD. I'm going to try to make you spend more $$$. I'm going to try to show you why saving $50 over a possible 5+ year ownership cycle is something you will regret (or you should, if you really want the best bang for your buck).

(The above isn't really for the OP; it is for everyone else that will jump down my throat for the following suggestions.

Have you read the caution above? Good, let's begin.

See:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-850-evo-850-pro-2tb-ssd,4205.html


When you begin to consider a new component, don't start with an arbitrary budget. Instead, explore what is the current top of the line and adjust your expectations from there.

Invariably, capacity is king with storage subsystems. Combine that with SSD prowess and few will argue that a 2TB SSD from a brand name, Samsung in this case, would be almost universally considered 'the top', right now.

But when we compare this against available SSD's for pure sustained performance, it surprisingly (to some) falls short.

See the above link and scroll to the 'PCMark 8 Advanced Workload Performance' section.

In the second graph (click the right arrow...) of that section, the Heavy Workload bandwidth graph, you'll see that the SanDisk Extreme Pro stands head and shoulders above all current competitors shown. And it still doesn't hit above ~250MB/s... As a matter of fact, the 2TB 850 Pro is ~100MB/s slower and shockingly, the 2TB EVO is slightly better than the 'Pro'.

Hmmm...
An SSD that was introduced over a year ago is still faster than a just introduced SSD with double the capacity.

As the article states:

And goes on to say:

And also:

If we read the above for our benefit, the take away is that the latest SSD's, even in the highest capacity, haven't reached the pinnacle of performance that the SanDisk Extreme Pro did from over a year ago.

With the above, we can extrapolate a few things.

First, capacity is important in SSD's. You have correctly identified the best capacity point already in your post - if you are expecting to not use all the capacity today, or in the next few months. Regardless of OP'ing, you should have 50GB free or more at all times. And that is just to insure your stated performance goal is reached: improve boot times. Also, keep in mind that a 480GB - 512GB nominal SSD is closer to ~395GB to ~425GB actual usable capacity after formatting and free space considerations too.

If you can stay within the above constrictions, for at least the next 18 months if not the next 5+ years, you should be good. If not, consider today the next size bigger (960GB to 1024GB, nominal), especially if the system you'll be putting this in is fairly new and you expect it to last roughly the same time.

Secondly, the marketed performance of an SSD is far from the steady state performance you will see from it on a daily basis after you have installed your O/S, programs and data on it and used it a couple of weeks. Buying anything less than the best you can afford is getting you closer and closer to HDD levels (more than you might guess), even if the criteria you want improvement on (boot up) will still be faster than a mechanical drive.

Third, almost any SSD will still be useful for far longer than you may want to keep it for, depending on capacity and performance, of course. This should be a consideration for getting a better drive and using it in future systems as needed.

Lastly, we come to price. Be patient and use sales to your advantage.

See:
http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Extreme-2-5-Inch-Warranty-SDSSDXPS-480G-G25/dp/B00KHRYRLY

The top rated (by; me... and others in the know) SSD for the price of your cheapest option at $179.99 right now (yeah; $250 savings as per Amazon.com). It is the SanDisk Extreme Pro 480GB SSD, of course.


I warned that I would try to make you spend more. Sorry, today I failed.


The point of the exercise above? Don't pick arbitrary budgets with no meaning relative to the product you're interested in.

SSD's are not interchangeable. Contrary to what almost every reviewer might suggest (unless you read between the lines of the manufacturers feelings and advertising $$ for their site they're trying to protect ).

Always buy the best you can afford. Always.

If you miss this sale and you had to pay even $60 or $120 more for this same SSD, over 5 years (and mostly more...) this extra one time cost would have repaid you back many, many times.

Sure, $60/$120 would make for a nice night out. But it won't be exactly equivalent performance when you're using a much lesser drive for the next 2000+ nights or so...

And I, 'tiller, would be remiss to not tell you to OP the hell out of the SSD - 33% (or more, if you start with a much higher capacity drive than you need today). That is if you want the fastest sustained (over time) performance possible from almost any SSD you buy; almost no matter how you use it.

My questions to you are this; knowing what you know now... Would you buy anything other than the best you can, even if it means spending a few more 'one time' dollars initially? Especially if you can afford it (either by saving a little longer or simply by loosening your grip on the purse strings)?

You have a great day and thanks for reading my post too.

 

Thanks for the replies guys.

I will give this some further thought, especially as people are saying that I have nothing to worry about when it comes to the 850 evo and TLC in general.

And tilleroftheearth, two things:

1. Firstly, thank you for giving me a good laugh- it was appreciated

2. Unfortunately I cannot buy from amazon.com as I am in Canada and so the Extreme Pro is not as cost effective(I'm sure I wrote that down when creating the thread, must have gotten deleted somehow), but I will say that it looks nice and I can understand why you are saying that spending a little bit more now is better in the long run. I still haven't decided completely- I may still take one of the cheaper options as I don't have money to blow, though I will think about it more as you do have some valid points.

I do still respect your decision though, along with the input of the others. A few more questions might be in order however:

Are there any other SSD other than the Extreme Pro and the ones that I listed that I should be aware of?

Is OCZ such a bad brand? I've been reading that they used to have terrible reliability, but since Toshiba bought them they have been better.

Lastly, should I pay huge attention to the warranty? I see that the Sandisk Extreme Pro has a 10-year warranty. But does that even matter, considering advancements in SSD (both cost and reliability)?

Once again, thanks for reading and have a wonderful day.

 

Gamethread, there's no point in warranty beyond 3 years - by that time you will likely upgrade the SSD, switch system or both. Warranty won't help you restore your data, which is usually much more important, but it is always reflected in item's price. Automatic backup to second SSD inside your machine and your home-server/external drive will.

 

Glad to spread the lols...

Concentrate on where you can buy from, not where you can't.

See:
http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX52695

$244.99, today. $150 off - but as you're saving to reach this new budget level keep the search for the sales active. There will be a point where your savings will cross with the price offered. Then; pounce.

OCZ and specifically OCZ+SF is what nightmares are made of. Toshiba was never (my) top pick at any point, now with SF 'tech', that is even more reason to avoid them at all costs. Dura'crap' technology in the SF line is only meant to do one thing: limit the warranty claims for the manufacturer of the SSD. It doesn't help the user get the best or most performance from the ssd, in fact, when it throttles itself and never recovers, it ensures the user never gets to see the promised performance in real world use.

Have they moved away from that in 2015? Maybe. But that is irrelevant to me. They are dead as a company for more reasons than this anyway.

With regards to warranty, I am at the extreme. I put no stock in warranties on storage subsystems. Only return periods for DOA products. Why? After I put even a single file of my own data (or my clients) on a storage subsystem, the drive is never outside of my control. Ever. Even total failure will bring the hammer to the product in question and warranty, RMA and other third parties will never even know about it, officially.

You may not be as careful/anal about the data on your drives. Your call. But the few dollars that a storage component costs is nothing compared to the trust I have earned from my clients with regards to their data on my systems.

Yeah, other SSD's are worth considering. But that was already covered in my other post, I think.

How long will it take you to save an additional $65 and forget about these issues for the next half decade?

I think that is the better question, no?

Good luck.