-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
In the market for a cheap-o SSD
- Thread starter Theocnoob
- Start date
OP
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Location
- Near Toronto Canada
- Thread Starter
- #22
You guys have totally convinced me. 840 EVO it is.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2011
Samsung EVO wont go cheaper than ~90 CHF in my country and for as much as 111 CHF i would already get a SSD with twice as much GB (Crucial M500 240 GB). Of course the Samsung EVO is a bit spicier when it comes to performance but the difference on a "basic PC" wont truly be noticeable. The read performance is more or less comparable, but the EVOs perform better on write performance but not every user is in need of high write performance. Crucial drives was never the highest performer but the price/performance ratio and the general utility they provide makes them hard to avoid for any system in the lower price range. Crucial m500 240GB is a 7mm drive but i think many (with size lower than 240 GB) 2.5 inch SSDs are 7mm nowadays, so its nothing special. The only difficulty is when they have to put the NAND on 2 sides of the PCB, so it may not allow for a ultra slim 7mm architecture but as long as a SSD isnt builded with 2 sided NAND (usualy 240 GB or less), they should be 7mm as a standart.
So for myself, i would always go with a Crucial M500 when i want to save up on cash, cant get more bang for bucks. Of course, for people who just want the highest performance they have some different needs but thats another story. Also be aware: The 840 EVO is missing power loss protection, cross-die redundancy, and it currently lacks Opal 2.0 encryption, which is one of the M500's aces.
Of course if you want a 120/128 GB drive, the EVO is the best deal, but there isnt a single drive at the 120/128GB range being a good "price/performance" because for lesser than twice the price a SSD with double data size can be gotten. That was different 1-2 years ago but time is changing... One of the main reason certainly is because a huge amount of people usualy use a SSD for OS only, so a 120 GB is sufficient and because of the exorbitant demand the price of that size-range was able to be pushed.
Also have to remember: A SSDs endurance is dependable on many factors, but a very important factor is the general size of all the NAND, because a SSD is usualy doing NAND wear-leveling by using all the available NAND together. So that means a SSD with twice the NAND amount will have a reduced wearing of factor 2, because it can target twice as many NAND in order to make "wear leveling". This is a technical issue, it counts the same for every single manufacturer and every single SSD, there is no magics involved, just "tech". There is no such thing such as "fragmentation", it doesnt matter at what location a Bit is stored (unlike HDD). The only problem is that SSD dont enjoy when there is to much data (as a percentage) stored on them because it will wipe out "available empty space" in order to make quick executions of many actions able to increase performance. So a pretty full SSD will always have decreased performance and in term a 120 GB SSD is completly filled out, its pretty possible that a average performing 240 GB SSD will slowly catch up to that performance. Testing is usualy done on nearly empty and almost unused drives, but such a testing condition isnt realisitic.
So for myself, i would always go with a Crucial M500 when i want to save up on cash, cant get more bang for bucks. Of course, for people who just want the highest performance they have some different needs but thats another story. Also be aware: The 840 EVO is missing power loss protection, cross-die redundancy, and it currently lacks Opal 2.0 encryption, which is one of the M500's aces.
Of course if you want a 120/128 GB drive, the EVO is the best deal, but there isnt a single drive at the 120/128GB range being a good "price/performance" because for lesser than twice the price a SSD with double data size can be gotten. That was different 1-2 years ago but time is changing... One of the main reason certainly is because a huge amount of people usualy use a SSD for OS only, so a 120 GB is sufficient and because of the exorbitant demand the price of that size-range was able to be pushed.
Also have to remember: A SSDs endurance is dependable on many factors, but a very important factor is the general size of all the NAND, because a SSD is usualy doing NAND wear-leveling by using all the available NAND together. So that means a SSD with twice the NAND amount will have a reduced wearing of factor 2, because it can target twice as many NAND in order to make "wear leveling". This is a technical issue, it counts the same for every single manufacturer and every single SSD, there is no magics involved, just "tech". There is no such thing such as "fragmentation", it doesnt matter at what location a Bit is stored (unlike HDD). The only problem is that SSD dont enjoy when there is to much data (as a percentage) stored on them because it will wipe out "available empty space" in order to make quick executions of many actions able to increase performance. So a pretty full SSD will always have decreased performance and in term a 120 GB SSD is completly filled out, its pretty possible that a average performing 240 GB SSD will slowly catch up to that performance. Testing is usualy done on nearly empty and almost unused drives, but such a testing condition isnt realisitic.
Last edited:
OP
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Location
- Near Toronto Canada
- Thread Starter
- #24
missing power loss protection, cross-die redundancy, and it currently lacks Opal 2.0 encryption
Ivy, thanks for your detailed post. Could you explain what ^ these things mean?
Ivy, thanks for your detailed post. Could you explain what ^ these things mean?
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2011
Im a bit busy because my Skyrim seems to be upset because of to many mods (hello CTD...).
You can read some of the stuff at http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crucial-m500-1tb-ssd,3551-13.html they offer some comparison and a few explantions regarding the difference between those 2 drives.
When it comes to my personal view:
Opal 2.0 encryption: Its simply for security purpose, when you are encrypting a drive which is the same action such as the MS bitlocker is doing, you may increase security in theory. Although bitlocker is only available on professional or ultimate editions in usual, so its not truly usable for a majority of the users who dont own a "special edition of the OS". However, Opal 2.0 as far as i know is a more powerful encryption, so in term someone feels the need for it they will have a powerful encryption handed out by buying a M500 drive. However if you want to know my honest view regarding encryption which is more of a philosophical view: In a practical environment, away from the theoretical number crunching (harder to access = more secure), a encryption isnt more safe than no encryption at all. Because as soon as someone is using encrytion they are drawing "bad moths" inside theyr data because it kinda will mark a "bright bulb" inside a dark room. "Bad moths" dont enjoy data that is easely available to them, they want to crack and hack data and as better the data is protected as higher the effort they are doing in order to spy out that data. So ultimately you are only doing yourself some troubles by decreasing the "easy access" to your own data but overal security wont necessarely be improved. So, a encryption is a feature but not necessarely useful... Although, the M500 got a hardware based AES 256-bit encryption engine and that means it can execute encryption without any performance loss, thats surely pretty interesting in term someone feels the need for encryption.
Power loss protection: Basically, lets say your power goes off all of a sudden due to different reasons (akku destroyed, general power cut, damaged hardware or whatever) without backing up your data any of the data cached inside your SSD will be destroyed and it may cause data corruption, the most nasty ones would be OS related. Usualy a good OS got many data protection technologys on its own against sudden power loss. However, its not failproof and a OS is still able to be damaged in term the SSD was in the progress of writing cached data. Because the cache itself is a volatile environment, as soon as the power is turned off, those data will be destroyed (comparable to RAM). In theory you can disable the data cache of a SSD but this will greatly reduce performance, so it will truly hurt your overall performance and thats not recommended. Luckily, such a action isnt required in term a SSD got a power loss protection, so in term there is a power loss the SSD data cache wont be destroyed, it will still be able to write down its cache to the NAND thanks to the special capacitors backing up the volatile cache. Those capacitors are sometimes described as "supercapacitors" because they have some unique ability to store lot of charge in a very small environment, so its not a cheap cap, its some enhanced stuff (for example tantalum cap). That capability can greatly reduce the risk of critical data loss because the "volatile" cache is protected and the non volatile data is usualy already written somewhere. So it can be useful in order to protect against corruption, surely a good feature.
Cross-die redundancy: This feature is also known as "RAIN", Microns (the manufacturer of the NAND used on the M500) trade name for cross-die redundancy. Its kinda the same such as the "RAISE" feature used on Sandforce based SSD controllers. Its able to protect from partial loss of NAND cells, so that means its able to recover a certain amount of damaged NAND cells inside a certain NAND module. However, its unable to recover a entire NAND module in term the whole NAND module would be damaged. So its not the ultimate protection but in many terms just a certain part of a NAND module could be damaged and not the whole NAND module. In that term that technology is pretty useful and it truly would be able to safe your data. So you will certainly have some increased security, thats clear. Sure, there is many options in order to increase security against all kind of data loss, however, those solutions can be pretty expensive (and users buying a inexpensive SSD arnt the ones having to much bucks to spare) and thats the point why a "build in" protection is able to grant some more security at zero cost, so its simply a free bonus.
Anyway, so you see its not just all about "raw speed", utility is another thing to take into consideration. Checking out Newegg http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148694 the price isnt that spicy (although i got my drive cheaper than that). Finally its your choice but i think its good to know all the available options and dont let the raw speed of the EVO blend your eyes to much.
There isnt truly "slow SSDs" anymore nowadays (at least not in the 240 GB range), just SSDs expensive or cheap and some with good or bad utility.
You can read some of the stuff at http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crucial-m500-1tb-ssd,3551-13.html they offer some comparison and a few explantions regarding the difference between those 2 drives.
When it comes to my personal view:
Opal 2.0 encryption: Its simply for security purpose, when you are encrypting a drive which is the same action such as the MS bitlocker is doing, you may increase security in theory. Although bitlocker is only available on professional or ultimate editions in usual, so its not truly usable for a majority of the users who dont own a "special edition of the OS". However, Opal 2.0 as far as i know is a more powerful encryption, so in term someone feels the need for it they will have a powerful encryption handed out by buying a M500 drive. However if you want to know my honest view regarding encryption which is more of a philosophical view: In a practical environment, away from the theoretical number crunching (harder to access = more secure), a encryption isnt more safe than no encryption at all. Because as soon as someone is using encrytion they are drawing "bad moths" inside theyr data because it kinda will mark a "bright bulb" inside a dark room. "Bad moths" dont enjoy data that is easely available to them, they want to crack and hack data and as better the data is protected as higher the effort they are doing in order to spy out that data. So ultimately you are only doing yourself some troubles by decreasing the "easy access" to your own data but overal security wont necessarely be improved. So, a encryption is a feature but not necessarely useful... Although, the M500 got a hardware based AES 256-bit encryption engine and that means it can execute encryption without any performance loss, thats surely pretty interesting in term someone feels the need for encryption.
Power loss protection: Basically, lets say your power goes off all of a sudden due to different reasons (akku destroyed, general power cut, damaged hardware or whatever) without backing up your data any of the data cached inside your SSD will be destroyed and it may cause data corruption, the most nasty ones would be OS related. Usualy a good OS got many data protection technologys on its own against sudden power loss. However, its not failproof and a OS is still able to be damaged in term the SSD was in the progress of writing cached data. Because the cache itself is a volatile environment, as soon as the power is turned off, those data will be destroyed (comparable to RAM). In theory you can disable the data cache of a SSD but this will greatly reduce performance, so it will truly hurt your overall performance and thats not recommended. Luckily, such a action isnt required in term a SSD got a power loss protection, so in term there is a power loss the SSD data cache wont be destroyed, it will still be able to write down its cache to the NAND thanks to the special capacitors backing up the volatile cache. Those capacitors are sometimes described as "supercapacitors" because they have some unique ability to store lot of charge in a very small environment, so its not a cheap cap, its some enhanced stuff (for example tantalum cap). That capability can greatly reduce the risk of critical data loss because the "volatile" cache is protected and the non volatile data is usualy already written somewhere. So it can be useful in order to protect against corruption, surely a good feature.
Cross-die redundancy: This feature is also known as "RAIN", Microns (the manufacturer of the NAND used on the M500) trade name for cross-die redundancy. Its kinda the same such as the "RAISE" feature used on Sandforce based SSD controllers. Its able to protect from partial loss of NAND cells, so that means its able to recover a certain amount of damaged NAND cells inside a certain NAND module. However, its unable to recover a entire NAND module in term the whole NAND module would be damaged. So its not the ultimate protection but in many terms just a certain part of a NAND module could be damaged and not the whole NAND module. In that term that technology is pretty useful and it truly would be able to safe your data. So you will certainly have some increased security, thats clear. Sure, there is many options in order to increase security against all kind of data loss, however, those solutions can be pretty expensive (and users buying a inexpensive SSD arnt the ones having to much bucks to spare) and thats the point why a "build in" protection is able to grant some more security at zero cost, so its simply a free bonus.
Anyway, so you see its not just all about "raw speed", utility is another thing to take into consideration. Checking out Newegg http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148694 the price isnt that spicy (although i got my drive cheaper than that). Finally its your choice but i think its good to know all the available options and dont let the raw speed of the EVO blend your eyes to much.
There isnt truly "slow SSDs" anymore nowadays (at least not in the 240 GB range), just SSDs expensive or cheap and some with good or bad utility.
Last edited:
OP
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Location
- Near Toronto Canada
- Thread Starter
- #26
Thanks for the explanation Ivy.
Which drive has all 3 of those things? Does the 840 EVO have them all?
Which drive has all 3 of those things? Does the 840 EVO have them all?
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2011
The M500 got those features, the EVO is a bit faster (write performance, read should be more or less the same) but it will lack those features, just as i told. Performance is always difficult to explain because for example: The M500 isnt having issues with files unable to be compressed because it wont use compression (usualy done by Sandforce based drives) in order to "cheat" performance.
Surely, the M500 is more of a entertainment drive with good utility, while the Samsung EVO is more headed toward the "performance user" but with lesser security utility. But just as i said, both drives are performing well, there isnt really a slow SSD anymore nowadays. Its your choice... more speed or more utility...
Regarding TRIM, GARBAGE collection and SMART, all of the new drives (including driver or operating systems) nowadays support those kind of stuff, so thats a standart not even worth to mention anymore. 7 mm size according to my newest research is another standart pretty much available on any of the newest drives on the market, so its nothing special.
Anyway, i truly suggest to get a 240 GB drive, because the price difference of 30 bucks is totaly worth it (~90 vs. ~120 dollar), you will be more safe. Because you never know what kind of stuff you gonna store in future and there is more "overhead" with empty space in order to keep the performance at a more stable level and more NAND in order to make wear leveling. So i truly can give the advise not to be to cheap and prehaps invest some extra coins.
Besides: Dont mess with Adata or Kingston because those 2 (in my mind) arnt top of the line SSD manufacturers anymore. Crucial and Samsung are nowadays one of the main forces when it comes to SSD and they surely have outstanding quality at every single spot. Kingston and Adata arnt even that good performer: The Kingston SSD is based on totaly outdated modules/controller (pretty much a data coffin), and the Adata got a high issue when it comes to "small file read", such as the 4KB ones (means its a bad OS drive) and its using compression which is leading to sometimes very unstable performance. So i wouldnt be to cheap, invest some bucks and you may become much happier.
Surely, the M500 is more of a entertainment drive with good utility, while the Samsung EVO is more headed toward the "performance user" but with lesser security utility. But just as i said, both drives are performing well, there isnt really a slow SSD anymore nowadays. Its your choice... more speed or more utility...
Regarding TRIM, GARBAGE collection and SMART, all of the new drives (including driver or operating systems) nowadays support those kind of stuff, so thats a standart not even worth to mention anymore. 7 mm size according to my newest research is another standart pretty much available on any of the newest drives on the market, so its nothing special.
Anyway, i truly suggest to get a 240 GB drive, because the price difference of 30 bucks is totaly worth it (~90 vs. ~120 dollar), you will be more safe. Because you never know what kind of stuff you gonna store in future and there is more "overhead" with empty space in order to keep the performance at a more stable level and more NAND in order to make wear leveling. So i truly can give the advise not to be to cheap and prehaps invest some extra coins.
Besides: Dont mess with Adata or Kingston because those 2 (in my mind) arnt top of the line SSD manufacturers anymore. Crucial and Samsung are nowadays one of the main forces when it comes to SSD and they surely have outstanding quality at every single spot. Kingston and Adata arnt even that good performer: The Kingston SSD is based on totaly outdated modules/controller (pretty much a data coffin), and the Adata got a high issue when it comes to "small file read", such as the 4KB ones (means its a bad OS drive) and its using compression which is leading to sometimes very unstable performance. So i wouldnt be to cheap, invest some bucks and you may become much happier.
Last edited:
OP
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Location
- Near Toronto Canada
- Thread Starter
- #28
Crucial M500 is about the same price as 840 EVO at my local store. If you think the M500 is a better drive for me, I will get it.
$$ is tight atm so I will have to wait until June. I might even have to wait until July because I need a new router...
The usage of the laptop, in order of priority is:
Web appliance/Entertainment>MS Office/basic productivity>super light gaming
$$ is tight atm so I will have to wait until June. I might even have to wait until July because I need a new router...
The usage of the laptop, in order of priority is:
Web appliance/Entertainment>MS Office/basic productivity>super light gaming
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2002
- Location
- Southern California
I have had a 60gb jmicron based Kingston circa 2008-9. An adata 60gb sata 2, a 64gb adata sata 3, Ocz agility 3 120gb. Samsung 840 250gb, and now a Seagate 600 480gb.
Outside of the jmicron Kingston which was utter garbage, I'm not sure I could tell you which drove was which from desktop and gaming use. Every upgrade has been due to needing more space.
The numbers mean very little outside of benchmarks.
Outside of the jmicron Kingston which was utter garbage, I'm not sure I could tell you which drove was which from desktop and gaming use. Every upgrade has been due to needing more space.
The numbers mean very little outside of benchmarks.
OP
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Location
- Near Toronto Canada
- Thread Starter
- #31
IMHO the Samsung 840 EVO is the better drive.
Why do you say that? It has none of those features that Ivy pointed out. Why can't eveyone just agree so I know what to buy
?
OP
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Location
- Near Toronto Canada
- Thread Starter
- #33
The 840 evo has turbowrite and I think it is more reliable because I have not seen people complain in the forms about 840 EVO..
Have you seen anyone complain about the crucial drive?
No I have not, however I see more suggestion's and people getting the 840 EVO in the forms.
OP
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Location
- Near Toronto Canada
- Thread Starter
- #36
Really? Even lower than Intel? I thought Intel was the reliability king of SSDs.
OP
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Location
- Near Toronto Canada
- Thread Starter
- #38
Well those numbers are pretty convincing. Looks like it's settled. 840 EVO it shall be. Now to just get the money together...
Forms...? Forums man. Forums.
Anyway :http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=741728
Isn't It amazing how big.of a deal people make about reliability and the reality is there is hardly a difference between hem? Even Kingston.
Edit: same link that atm posted I see... Mine is the latest version though.
Anyway :http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=741728
Isn't It amazing how big.of a deal people make about reliability and the reality is there is hardly a difference between hem? Even Kingston.
Edit: same link that atm posted I see... Mine is the latest version though.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2011
I wouldnt give to much of a beer crate when it comes to those retourn rate statistics. Retourn rate isnt comparable to "failure rate". On top of that, this retourn rate isnt always precise enough, both Samsung and Crucial got many different drives. Both the EVO and M500 are very reliable, what matters more is "what happen to the data in term there is a true failure".
What surely can be said, yes, OCZ had a high issue when it comes to theyr drives in the past. I was one of many victims but it wasnt necessarely a hardware issue, they had high firmware issues and it took them over a year in order to sort out those firmware issues. The users of those drives pretty much had the condition of labor rats and that wasnt to nice. However, all of my OCZ drives are fixed now by a firmware update (and it took me lot of sweat in order to solve the issue), but it has been solved with the firmware update V. 2.22, so we have to look forward. OCZ in the past was a very powerful and innovative SSD manufacturer and just because the others was catching up to them doesnt mean OCZ is inferior. The current OCZ drives i own, Vertex 3 MI, are going strong inside my gamer system for several years already, they have up to 16k hours of operation time and when i use SMART tools the wear value is still 100%. Indeed, i paid 600 $ (!) for my 240 GB Vertex 3 MI (and half of that for my 120 GB one), several years ago, so the issue was hitting me harder than anyone would ever believe because those SSDs was A LOT, YES A LOT more expensive in the years 2011-2012... cant compare it to the "mainstream prices" of 2014. However, the most expensive part was the NAND, they are MLC not TLC, so its a more expensive NAND with higher endurance. But im not a entity full of grudges, nowadays those drives are serving me very well inside my gamer system(s) and it seems that they may have a exorbitant endurance so it was worth it paying a fortune several years ago, but on top of that those drives are still very high performance, so they are not outdated at all.
One of the thing very important to know: Several years ago OCZ didnt backup any form of "user handled firmware upgrade" by warranty. So that means in term a user was doing a firmware mod the warranty was officialy gone! However, for many years already OCZ was changing theyr policy and they do allow user to use firmware flashes on theyr drives without the loss of warranty. It was very important to make that change and they did it, so there is no risk sorting out issues. Although nowadays there should be no firmware issues anymore but a upgraded firmware is still able to give better performance or utility. So far i can tell, OCZ isnt causing troubles with RMA, and i would say they are still a trusted manufacturer so those "retourn rate" is somewhat overexagerated.
Im really not taking sides... i have all sort of drives working inside my machines: Samsung 840 PRO, Crucial M4, OCZ Vertex 3 MI, and a freshly gotten Crucial M500. I even have a old Kingston SSD inside my PS3 console... so i alreaday use SSDs of 4 different manufacturers. But nowadays all those drives are working properly and i cant say that any of them is truly "inferior", people shouldnt put to much weight on "reliability stuff" and its "number crunching" but simply get the best drives able to serve theyr own unique needs the best.
What surely can be said, yes, OCZ had a high issue when it comes to theyr drives in the past. I was one of many victims but it wasnt necessarely a hardware issue, they had high firmware issues and it took them over a year in order to sort out those firmware issues. The users of those drives pretty much had the condition of labor rats and that wasnt to nice. However, all of my OCZ drives are fixed now by a firmware update (and it took me lot of sweat in order to solve the issue), but it has been solved with the firmware update V. 2.22, so we have to look forward. OCZ in the past was a very powerful and innovative SSD manufacturer and just because the others was catching up to them doesnt mean OCZ is inferior. The current OCZ drives i own, Vertex 3 MI, are going strong inside my gamer system for several years already, they have up to 16k hours of operation time and when i use SMART tools the wear value is still 100%. Indeed, i paid 600 $ (!) for my 240 GB Vertex 3 MI (and half of that for my 120 GB one), several years ago, so the issue was hitting me harder than anyone would ever believe because those SSDs was A LOT, YES A LOT more expensive in the years 2011-2012... cant compare it to the "mainstream prices" of 2014. However, the most expensive part was the NAND, they are MLC not TLC, so its a more expensive NAND with higher endurance. But im not a entity full of grudges, nowadays those drives are serving me very well inside my gamer system(s) and it seems that they may have a exorbitant endurance so it was worth it paying a fortune several years ago, but on top of that those drives are still very high performance, so they are not outdated at all.
One of the thing very important to know: Several years ago OCZ didnt backup any form of "user handled firmware upgrade" by warranty. So that means in term a user was doing a firmware mod the warranty was officialy gone! However, for many years already OCZ was changing theyr policy and they do allow user to use firmware flashes on theyr drives without the loss of warranty. It was very important to make that change and they did it, so there is no risk sorting out issues. Although nowadays there should be no firmware issues anymore but a upgraded firmware is still able to give better performance or utility. So far i can tell, OCZ isnt causing troubles with RMA, and i would say they are still a trusted manufacturer so those "retourn rate" is somewhat overexagerated.
Im really not taking sides... i have all sort of drives working inside my machines: Samsung 840 PRO, Crucial M4, OCZ Vertex 3 MI, and a freshly gotten Crucial M500. I even have a old Kingston SSD inside my PS3 console... so i alreaday use SSDs of 4 different manufacturers. But nowadays all those drives are working properly and i cant say that any of them is truly "inferior", people shouldnt put to much weight on "reliability stuff" and its "number crunching" but simply get the best drives able to serve theyr own unique needs the best.
Last edited:
