Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| SSD Advice: Crucial M4 256GB or Samsung 830 256GB I've been doing some research because I'm just about to pull the trigger on an SSD (my first one).
Because of my budget, I've narrowed my choices to these two drives: Crucial m4 and the Samsung 830. Both are suppose to be spectacular SSD drives. But I'm wondering if the price differences between the two are worth the extra speeds I would get from the Samsung 830.
In nearly all benchmark tests that I've found online, the Samsung 830 is faster. I might even go as far to say that it's far faster in nearly every benchmark test out there. So, the 830 is more expensive than the m4 by around $60-75. Crucial m4 listed for around $230 (there have been deals listing it for as low as $199) and the Sammy 830 listed at around $290 (none kit version: no bracket, software, cables, etc.). I've found I don't need the kit version that raises the price of the 830 almost $50. I have an SSD bracket, migration software I can find for cheaper, and I have SATA III cables handy. So basically a price differential of about ~$60, give or take.
As far as benchmarks go, this link below will give you all the speed comparisons between both the Crucial m4, Samsung 830, and Intel 520, for good measure.
»www.ssdreview.com/review/compare···ion.html
If you take a look, you will see what sort of performance differences I am looking at in my research. Wondering if in fact those details are worth the $60-70 that I would have to pay.
Would that performance increase in the 830 translate to being worth an extra $70. Or are *all* SSD's so fast that even if one drive is faster than another, any speed differences would be negligible in real world use anyways. I'm really leaning on this idea. They are both so incredibly fast that any differences in speed would be negligible at best.
Any help would really be appreciated.
Lastly, I felt I should mention that www.ssdreview.com has been incredibly helpful for me. I suggest it for people doing their own research for SSD purchases. So props to ssdreview.com and their fine website.
|
|
|
|
 OctaveanPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1 | I have a few SSD models (both SATA 3G and SATA 6G) and I think you are correct in assuming that most modern, good quality SSD models are so fast that you wont notice a speed difference empirically unless you breakout the stop watch and benchmarks.
So it really becomes an issue of price, controller and reliability. Therefore once you satisfied your comfort zone for price the most reliable SSD is what you’ll want. Intel has a very good dependability track record as well as a great tool-set in terms of utilities and upkeep for the SSD. Samsung is probably right behind Intel with respect to reliability. Crucial isn’t bad either so I would go in order Intel, Samsung then Crucial.
BTW, for what its worth, I’ve setup a 4x60GB (240GB) SSD RAID 0 array that benched about ~890 MB/s sequential reads in HD_Tune. While sequential reads aren’t everything this approaches twice the sequential reads of a typical SATA 6G SSD and this was on Intel PHC SATA 3G ports. Personally my conclusion was that fast was fast and I didn’t notice any real difference over a single SSD.
Honistly I don’t think you’ll go too far wrong no matter which SSD you choose because each model you mentioned is fairly good.
I have the following SSD models:
Corsair Force Series 3 120GB (2x)
Kingston SSDNow V Series SNV-S2 128GB (1x)
Kingston SSDNow V Series SNV-S2 64GB (3x)
OCZ Vortex Plus 240GB (2x)
OCZ Vortex 2 120GB (1x)
OCZ Octane 128GB (1x)
OCZ Agility 60GB (1x)
SanDisk 64GB mSATA (1x) (OEM for Asus Eee Slate EP121 Windows 7 Tablet PC)
I’ve been very lucky apparently because I have had absolutely “zero” problems with any of them,….knock on wood. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to TruSm0ke
I'm running Crucial M4 (128 GB variety) in both a laptop and a desktop. Both have been running very smooth with fast boot times, fast load times, and really no issues at all. For comparison's sake, I've had the drive in the desktop since December of last year, and the laptop has been up and going since April. So my ownership time has been relatively low on them both, and you can take from that what you will. Good luck in your decision! |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to Octavean
Hey guy, thanks for the replies!
@Octavean - You have basically confirmed a few of my inquiries regarding the purchase of my first SSD.
SSD's are so fast, that most just won't have any sort of visible difference in regards to real world use. Like you said, maybe while testing with a stop watch, but even then, differences are milliseconds or a couple of seconds at most. Negligible.
I do have a budget with this purchase. And although my budget has fluctuated from $200 to let's now say roughly $300 (128GB vs. 256GB: prefer 256GB variation) I still have an idea of how much I'd like to pay.
For what it's worth, I have heard really good things about Intel SSD's. It seems like most people have the same sentiment that Intel SSD's are proven as reliable, fast, and well-built SSD drives.
I'll have to make a decision here soon. But it sounds like which ever way I go I should be alright.
Would you guys agree that getting a 256GB variation vs 128GB is a better choice? Or should I get a 128GB and down the road purchase another? I have never ran RAID before, so that would certainly be a new frontier for me. In the past, running my HDD's normally (w/o RAID) always worked just fine for me. I've never really tried implementing any sort of RAID on any storage devices up to this point. |
|
 KoilPremium
join:2002-09-10
Irmo, SC
kudos:1 | If budget is a concern, I might wait a bit more, as prices are continuing to fall on the SSD's. Yesterday Newegg had a shell shocker for the Crucial M4 128 for $99.00. That isn't the standard by any means, but prices continue to fall on all SSD's and I think we'll get well below the 1GB/$1 ratio, and not too long from now.
My opinion, of course, and with all tech, of course it cheapens as it ages, but I think prices are still settling here, rather than dropping due to age.
--
DSLR Mafia
My Blog - Raising Connor
WoW: Mal'Ganis : Aftershock : Krimdal
|
|
OctaveanPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1 | reply to TruSm0ke
For what its worth, the last SSD I bought was an OCZ Vertex Plus 240GB SATA 3G SSD for ~$150 after coupon code and $20 rebate. That’s about a ~0.6 ratio albeit with an older SSD model / controller (Indilinx Barefoot / Martini). Generally speaking you should probably get the biggest SSD you can afford because the space can go quickly, especially so with large games and so on. If you have an Intel Z68 chipset, Z77 chipset or Asus X79 motherboard with proprietary SSD caching then you can setup an SSD as a cache for your HDD and never worry about micromanaging a diminutive SSD while still reaping the benefits of SSD speed. With Intel’s implementation your limited to something like 64GB of usable space on an SSD for caching purposes, though, the Asus implementation doesn’t specify a size limit IIRC. But basically the jump from a HDD to a decent SATA 3G SSD is very noteworthy. The jump from a SATA 3G SSD to a SATA 6G SSD isn’t IMO noticeable for typical tasks. Someone with a very specific workload may notice a difference (between SATA 3G and SATA 6G SSDs) but the average person likely wont especially so with typical games. You might want to read this as an indication of what Intel does in terms of qualifying their SSD units with respect to other companies: quote:
Intel was rumored to be working on a SandForce based drive for several months now, but even the rumors couldn't encapsulate just how long Intel and SF has worked on this drive. According to Intel, the relationship began 1.5 years ago. Still lacking a 6Gbps controller of their own and wanting to remain competitive with the rest of the market, Intel approached SandForce about building a drive based on the (at the time) unreleased SF-2281 controller. Roughly six months later, initial testing and validation began on the drive. That's right, around the time that OCZ was previewing the first Vertex 3 Pro, Intel was just beginning its extensive validation process.
Codenamed Cherryville, Intel's SSD 520 would go through a full year of validation before Intel would sign off on the drive for release. In fact, it was some unresolved issues that cropped up during Intel's validation that pushed Cherryville back from the late 2011 release to today.
Intel's strenuous validation will eventually make SandForce's drives better for everyone, but for now the Cherryville firmware remains exclusive. Intel wouldn't go on record with details of its arrangement with SandForce, but from what I've managed to piece together the Intel Cherryville firmware is exclusive for a limited period of time. That exclusivity agreement likely expires sometime after the SF-2281 is replaced by a 3rd generation controller. There are some loopholes that allow SandForce to port bug fixes to general partner firmware but the specific terms aren't public information. The important takeaway is anything fixed in Intel's firmware isn't necessarily going to be fixed in other SF-2281 based drives in the near term. This is an important distinction because although Cherryville performs very similarly to other SF-2281 drives, it should be more reliable.
» www.anandtech.com/show/5508/inte···andforce***edit*** Intel has also announced its cheaper SSD 330: » www.anandtech.com/show/5751/inte···andforceAlthough I don’t think they have a 240GB version. I think the highest density is ~180GB. |
|
 KrisnatharokCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:7 | reply to Koil
I approve of your sig. |
|
KoilPremium
join:2002-09-10
Irmo, SC
kudos:1 | lol...I hadn't even noticed...olskool |
|
| reply to Octavean
Just went ahead and ordered the Samsung 830 256GB SSD. I found a great deal on it for $240 ($300 reg).
Thanks for all the help guys. I do appreciate it. |
|
| reply to TruSm0ke
I have just recently made the jump to SSD. I was waiting for the prices to fall so I could afford to but a large drive. I have the Crucial M4 as my boot drive and so far I am very pleased with the performance of this drive. Extremely fast and so very stable. My only complaint is that the M4 did not include the 3.5 inch adapter, which I had to purchase after I got the drive.
Good luck.
--
Did you ever stop to think, and forget to start again? |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| Thanks for the reply.
Yeah, I did eventually just go ahead and buy an 256GB Samsung 830. After getting everything setup like reinstalling Windows and transferring important files over from my HDD, things have been great. I'm really enjoying having an SSD and its incredibly fast.
The 830 did come with a 3.5 inch adapter to properly install. But my NZXT case already has screw holes to fasten SSD's in. So it wasn't really necessary for my setup. But it was nice that it came with everything I needed regardless. |
|
 a2nxtcrav3rPokes People With StickPremium
join:2003-07-13
San Jose, CA | reply to TruSm0ke
the crucial is cheaper i believe
the samsung is a bit faster
I have two m4 256gb raid zero
You really wont notice the difference between the two they both make things load quick.
--
hmmmmmm.... |
|
