SSD Are Me!

[GoinAllTheWay]

Queston for those who have some experience with these drives:

I have an HP Pavillion DV 2000 laptop I aquired back in 2007. It was running painfully slow and the HD sounded somewhat suspect (and it was only 5400 RPM's) so figured I would buy an SSD for it and reload the o/s as it would make a great laptop to take on holidays.

I had no idea if it was going to work or not as I've never played around with them before but much to my surprise, it worked and loaded the o/s on to it once installed. The only odd thing I've noticed so far is executables take an unusually long time to start doing there thing. Also, large file transfers betwen the laptop and my server are a bit odd. It kind of transfers in surges. You move file and the transfer file dialogue box pops up. Nothing happens for about 15 secs and then the status bar surges forward....stops for a bit...surges again. Does this a half dozen times or so until the transfer is complete.

Is this normal for this type of drive? Is there any drivers I need for it? Anyway to verify if it is working as it should? Everything else works fine. Loads quickly, comes out of sleep in seconds.

[Ironhorse]

I require some input.

I currently have a 2 year old Intel based build that includes a nice 80 GB SSD along with a couple of 500GB drives on a RAID1 configuration for my data. I have no problems with the workstation, other than the fact that I now require more space on the main C drive for program installs and catalog maintenance for Adobe Lightroom.

I would like to go up to probably around a 120-160GB SSD. I am more concerned with reliability than outright performance; which one does CP recommend? I plan on having this computer in mainline service for at least another year.

Also, how much work is involved in switching the main C drive and transferring all of my data over so that Windows doesn't notice the difference and goes on its merry way?

[photon]

For reliability I'd probably stick with Intel, their Sandforce based SSDs are fast like the others but they went through a year of validation before coming out. 5 year warranty I think on the retail drives (not sure if it still is 5 year).

Samsung and Crucial also have pretty good reputations.

[DownhillGoat]

Just installed a OCZ Vertex 4 in the macbook.

Holy. Fata. I can't believe I didn't do this sooner.

Big thanks to photon for all the help!

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by photon

For reliability I'd probably stick with Intel, their Sandforce based SSDs are fast like the others but they went through a year of validation before coming out. 5 year warranty I think on the retail drives (not sure if it still is 5 year).

Samsung and Crucial also have pretty good reputations.

I run 2 Crucial M4s and they are boss as hell.

Crucial and Intel are all I will recommend, as a friend of mine had a meltdown on his Samsung 830 and I can't in good conscience recommend them any more.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I run 2 Crucial M4s and they are boss as hell.

Crucial and Intel are all I will recommend, as a friend of mine had a meltdown on his Samsung 830 and I can't in good conscience recommend them any more.

The 830 is a highly regarded drive - I wouldn't be too quick to discount it on the basis of one observed failure.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

The 830 is a highly regarded drive - I wouldn't be too quick to discount it on the basis of one observed failure.

It literally melted. One-off failure (or anecdotal in this case) may be nothing, but when both Intel and Crucial make better drives (faster/reliable) in benchmarking at a 15% higher price point, one bad anecdote is enough to keep me in that seat.

SSDs shouldn't be something you skimp money on.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

but when both Intel and Crucial make better drives (faster/reliable)

I'm not sure I'd consider anything with a Sandforce controller (Intel) to be neccessarily better. Encrypted workloads, for example, are troublesome for them. I specifically chose the Crucial drive to keep away from the Sandforce controller.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

I'm not sure I'd consider anything with a Sandforce controller (Intel) to be neccessarily better. Encrypted workloads, for example, are troublesome for them. I specifically chose the Crucial drive to keep away from the Sandforce controller.

I've heard nothing but good things about the 5xx series Intel SSDs, in that the Sandforce they use is much better than the 2xx/3xx series (not to mention all the off-brand Sandforce drives).

[photon]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

It literally melted. One-off failure (or anecdotal in this case) may be nothing, but when both Intel and Crucial make better drives (faster/reliable) in benchmarking at a 15% higher price point, one bad anecdote is enough to keep me in that seat.

SSDs shouldn't be something you skimp money on.

Samsung's current generation drive beats Intel and crucial's drives in most cases. Anandtech says "In all but a handful of benchmarks, the 840 Pro is the fastest consumer SSD we've ever tested.", and also said that the Samsung drives were reliable.

I don't think I've ever read that Samsung SSDs had lower reliability.

[photon]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I've heard nothing but good things about the 5xx series Intel SSDs, in that the Sandforce they use is much better than the 2xx/3xx series (not to mention all the off-brand Sandforce drives).

The controller Intel uses in the 520 is the same SF-2281 controller as other brands (it's not off-brand, Sandforce (actually LSI now) makes the controller chips, and OCZ, Kingston, Patriot et al use them).

Where Intel has it above the others is that they've taken a year to validate and to tweak/write their own firmware, so while the 520 performs very similarly to other SF-2281 drives (ETA: meaning it will have the same weakness to encrypted and other uncompressable data, and the benchmarks prove this out) it presumably is more reliable.

[photon]

The new Corsair Neutron GTX is another interesting drive, very high performance as well, and its controller is from Link_A_Media (owned by Hynix now) who has lots of experience in the enterprise space, but this is their first consumer go-round so reliability might be a question mark. They do offer a 5 year warranty.

[Hack&Lube]

Crucial M4 128GB is $89.99 for the next 7 hours.

http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX35603

[Rathji]

I have managed, so far, to resist the urge to get a SSD before I upgraded my whole desktop, as I didn't want to deal with the hassle more than once. However, last night I got a nice error upon booting, which has led me to change that line of thinking.

What should I be looking for in a SSD at this time? in terms of pricing or things I want in the drive ( such as controller etc). I would prefer to keep it under $100, but that's flexible if there is a compelling reason.

Memory Express is supposed to have this drive on as their Daily Deal this week. Any reason I shouldn't consider it?

http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX42756

[PsYcNeT]

Good price, and Anandtech likes it: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6733/k...-v300-review/8

I only buy Crucial myself (reliable, non-Sandforce), but apparently all the Sandforce problems are fixed, and the v300 is a modern SSD.

I'd say buy.

[MickMcGeough]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I have managed, so far, to resist the urge to get a SSD before I upgraded my whole desktop, as I didn't want to deal with the hassle more than once. However, last night I got a nice error upon booting, which has led me to change that line of thinking.

What should I be looking for in a SSD at this time? in terms of pricing or things I want in the drive ( such as controller etc). I would prefer to keep it under $100, but that's flexible if there is a compelling reason.

Memory Express is supposed to have this drive on as their Daily Deal this week. Any reason I shouldn't consider it?

http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX42756

Anandtech had a look at this drive. (edit: hah beaten by PsYcNeT)

Basically - it's a vanilla sandforce drive. Which means it's very fast and a few people don't trust their reliability. I've had several sandforce drives and never had a problem.

Personally I'd go for the Samsung 840. The Anandtech review above compares the two and the Samsungs are faster and more power efficient for only a little bit more money.

[photon]

Yeah between the Kingston and the Samsung I'd go with the Samsung, I have an 840 Pro as my primary drive.

[PsYcNeT]

Would still rather buy a Crucial M4 at $120 than any of these drives, but it seems Rathji's main gate to SSD land is price, so the Kingston should fill that shoe.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Good price, and Anandtech likes it: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6733/k...-v300-review/8

I only buy Crucial myself (reliable, non-Sandforce), but apparently all the Sandforce problems are fixed, and the v300 is a modern SSD.

I'd say buy.

The price will be even cheaper on Saturday, probably just $5-10, when it is the Daily Deal.

Originally Posted by MickMcGeough

Personally I'd go for the Samsung 840. The Anandtech review above compares the two and the Samsungs are faster and more power efficient for only a little bit more money.

Originally Posted by photon

Yeah between the Kingston and the Samsung I'd go with the Samsung, I have an 840 Pro as my primary drive.

I will see what the price is on Saturday and make my final decision. If it doesn't drop much, I might swing to the Samsung. The $100 is an arbitrary limit, more in tune with keeping Mrs Rathji happy.

[Hack&Lube]

I've got Kingstons, Samsungs, Crucials, and Intels.

I am quite satisfied with Intel for reliability, Crucial for speed, and the Samsung I haven't really tested out that much. The Kingston drive I can't really speak for as it's in an old netbook I tried to revive that doesn't even support TRIM because it's running on a hack SATA/PATA bridge so it's probably in a very unhealthy state.