Kingston V+ 100 96GB SSD Review Discussion

In the last weeks we’ve reviewed several fast SSDs. This time we’re going to look at a budget SSD: the Kingston V+ 100 96GB. The online selling price of this SSD starts at $136. Sometimes with mail in rebates this SSD sells for close to $100. Is this a great bargain or are you better off spending more money? Read on to find out.

Read the full content of this Article: Kingston V+ 100 96GB SSD Review

Related Articles:

• OCZ Vertex 3 120GB Review
• Crucial M4 128GB SSD Review
• SSD shootout: Samsung 470 vs. Corsair Nova vs. OCZ Vertex 2
• ADATA Nobility N004 SSD Review
• SSD vs Hard Drives: A Beginner's Guide to SSD Upgrades

 

I have this in my x120e and it's great!

 

The latest generation of the Kingston SSDs has really improved since the first batch of SSDs that Kingston offered. I'd honestly argue these are among the best value in the SSD market if you're looking for a low-cost SSD ... particularly if you buy one that is on sale with a special discount/rebate.

 

Here's an idea, since you guys are a notebook-focused site - how about an article comparing SSD performance on battery life, and giving users options to pick the SSD that gives the longest run time.

I see too many SSD articles focused solely on performance, even when new models arrive. I'd really like to upgrade my 5400RPM drive in my netbook to a SSD, but it's near impossible to determine which SSD to pick based on power consumption or battery run time, as I've yet to find an article or comprehensive comparison chart that shows which drives sips the least power.

 

have you guys tested batterie life on the same day you installed windows on it?

 

Do you mean like this?


I'd put my money on Samsung 470 for lowest power consumption.
http://tweakers.net/reviews/2088/7/...-kingston-op-de-pijnbank-energieverbruik.html

One day after, repeated twice.

 

Exactly, except that list is much too limited (I might also throw in a modern 500GB 7200RPM drive for comparison). Many more SSD models are on the market today and come in varying capacities. Ideally, I would want to see every one of them listed like you have done, but short of buying up the NAND inventory at Newegg, I would recommend establishing a Battery Life chart and adding new drives to this list as they come through the lab. Then make this chart available somewhere on NBR for readers to see.

It's one thing to specify idle, seq. read and random read power draw for a SSD, as many tech review sites do, but translating that into real-world battery times is next to impossible. This is especially the case when "model A" may show great idle numbers but be a power hog on writes, while "model B" has all it's figures fall right in between.

Keep up the great work!

 

then the real question should have been how long did the system had has settle in time running or at iddle

cause your numbers ressemble other users that had issue with the overly agressive GC

 

Users HTWingnut has been posting battery life results of the V+ 100 and Intel X25-m in his notebook that were exactly in line with my results. His results were of a drive that he had been using for a while.

Based on that I don't think the GC had a disturbing effect on the measurement.

The power measurements I posted earlier confirm that the Kingston V+ 100 uses quite a bit of power when active.

The power consumption is all right but nothing special.

 

Yes I did do a battery life, boottimer, and CDM test here: http://forum.notebookreview.com/sol...marks-brands-news-advice-966.html#post7564213

But will repost.

Everything is on my Hannspree Hannsbook 12" with SU4100, 4500MHD GPU (GS45 chipset) and 55000 mWHr battery. X25-M is about a year old with about 900GB of writes (according to CrystalDiskInfo).


Crystal Disk Mark





Battery life test - web surfing, 40% screen, balanced power plan

Kingston 96GB: 4:54
Intel X25-M G2 80GB: 5:23
WD Caviar Blue 320GB: 4:56

About same ratio of battery life as Phil had posted.


BootTimer.exe

Kingston V+100 96GB:
On A/C (high performance):
Run 1: 27.300
Run 2: 27.803
Run 3: 25.272

On battery (balanced):
Run 1: 28.563 s
Run 2: 28.875 s
Run 3: 29.296 s

Intel X25-M G2 80GB (high perf):
Run 1: 28.111 s
Run 2: 28.298 s
Run 3: 29.000 s

WD Caviar Blue 320GB (high perf):
Run 1: 103.803 s
Run 2: 107.593 s
Run 3: 106.486 s

 

Thanks for sharing those results HTWingNut.

How long has your V+ been in use before you did the battery life test?

 

Actually done with only after a couple hours of use. I may run again to see if GC has settled at all or not.

 

it might be possible that the fact that i redirected most of my logs and other stuff to my mecanical drive helped

is it possible tha when you have a mecanical drive for logs and temp file windows store them in ram when the drive is stopped and write them only when it get back to work


or it's just jumping from a raid to 2 separate drive

any how the improvement is about 1/6 of the batterie life added on mine