The random read/write speeds on the Sandisk are on paper at least 10 times slower than the Samsung.Originally Posted by nasorpc
However, unless you get the PRO version the Samsung sequential write speeds are slower than the Sandisk
Not sure on the significance of the random read/write speeds bt one reviewer complained that virus scans were slow.
If you can check out the significance of the random read/write then on paper the Sandisk one looks okay
So if i went for a Samsung 840, then its got slower read/write speeds than a Sandisk? Are you sure mate? I thought there are no reviews for the Sandisk Pulse?
I said the Sandisk Random read/write is 10 times slower than the Samsung
This is the Samsung I refer to
http://www.novatech.co.uk/products/c...paign=products
I would probably go for the Samsung
Yup thats the same Samsung i'm talking about too mate, but i was commenting on this:-
The question is can the average user notice a big difference between these two ssd models?However, unless you get the PRO version the Samsung sequential write speeds are slower than the Sandisk
Look at the stated specs
Sandisk
Seq Write = 380 Mbs
Seq Read = 480 Mbs
Samsung
Seq Write = 130 Mbs
Seq Read = 530 Mbs
This does mean the Samsung write speed is slower
Have a look here
http://techreport.com/review/23887/s...s-ssd-reviewed
Ahh right...yeah thats strange...
ok, the sandisk read speed is only slightly slower (don't know if this read speed 480 vs 530mb would make a huge difference though?), but there is a massive difference between it and the samsung's write speed.
Yep so not a lot in it in read speed, probably won't notice a difference but that article I linked to said the Samsung's write speeds were on the slow side, and given the spec that is consistent.
However as I mentioned, the random read/write speed of the Sandisk is 10 times slower than the Samsung - I just don't know how significant that is in terms of noticeable performance
If you get a Samsung 830 I would go for that - you also get 8GB more (128GB as opposed to the 840 which is only 120GB)
i've just found an 830 vs 840 thread and a comment might be of interest to you:-
the 830 is samsung's the last generation ssd. the 840 pro is its new replacement for the 830. the regular 840 is a more mainstream drives and uses TLC nand instead of MLC nand thats used in the 830 & 840 pro. the TLC endurance is overblown. in all reality you wouldnt be able to tell the difference between all 3 in normal usage unless you are benchmarking. if money is no object get a 840 pro. without knowing your budget it's hard to give advice on what you should get. get the biggest well reviewed ssd you can afford.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/...erences-please
It depends on what you're doing. If you're a light user, then like I said it's probably not a problem, but based on the specs provided by Samsung, it's quite reasonable to expect a user to be capable of wearing out a drive during its lifetime, Anandtech essentially said the same thing. If some of these people actually bothered to measure how much is written to the drive (like I have, extensively) they might change their tune. I stand by what I said earlier.
Sounds like too much of a headache getting an ssd...the last thing i want is for the ssd to mess up. I've had hard drives that have lasted me in excess of 6yrs and still work...i do use my pc a lot and tend to transfer to and from loads of times as well as installing/uninstalling data all the time.
I use a combination of sleep and hibernate. For example, on my laptop if i just shut the lid it will go to sleep for a few hours before it hibernates but if i press the power button it just hibernates.
Kinda the best of both worlds because if you leave it for a short time and come back you get the PC back on almost instantly, but if leave it for a while you dont leave the PC sipping watts away but its still quicker than a cold boot to get back on
Those stats are also meaningless without specifications of the devices used
Definitely worth the price, all my computers have SSDs now
If you buy the right model there is no problem with reliability, its a minor pain... very minor, most of your core apps can go on the windows drive.
That really wasn't the point I was trying to make, and most other drives use MLC, which is significantly more durable. The Sandisk drive, Crucial M4, Samsung 830 (if you can still find one), Samsung 840 Pro, etc all use MLC. And again the specs tend to be very conservative anyway, so even the TLC drive would probably last a lot longer than expected, I'm just saying I don't think it's unreasonable that a moderately heavy user could reach the specified P/E count over the lifetime of the drive.
I was in two minds initially because of write durability, but it shouldn't be a problem for most people - I'll continue to use and recommend SSDs based on my experience. Just, if you happen to have another mechanical drive, it wouldn't be a bad idea to dump stuff like videos/big downloads to that. IMO it shouldn't be a concern big enough to put you off using an SSD, because of the performance gains it brings. Just remember stuff like never defragmenting it, most of the 'SSD optimisation guides' you see online are complete pants, written by people who either don't have a clue what they're typing about, or are regurgitating what they've read elsewhere without bothering to research if its true.
Last edited by watercooled; 08-02-2013 at 10:47 AM.
@ Biscuit - thanks for your input, but what do you think is classed as a reliable brand? Can you recommend a model for me please?
@ Watercooled - This is why i need to know if its worth paying the extra for a more reliable brand...i know OCZ is out of the question as i've read complaints from loads of people saying it just went dead on them.
Samsung have a good track record, as do Intel and Crucial. Remember the difference between what Watercooled is taking about and the main issues with drives such as the older OCZ ones.
Durability is how many write cycles a drive is expected to be able to handle, unless you are using the drive as a scratch disk for media editing, i doubt you will hit this number for a good few years.
General reliability is where the OCZ, and a few other drives fell down. This was mostly due to poor firmware on the controller cards of said SSDs.
Unless im mistaken, the general reliability has improved across the board with SSDs, i haven't heard anywhere near as many horror stories for SSDs as there used to be, even the older ones that were once fraught with issues have now been sorted with updates.
The reason i was asking about reliable brand biscuit is because i can't seem to make my mind up between these sata3 drives or what size to go for:-
Sandisk 128GB Pulse SSD Slim - £63
Samsung 120GB 840 Series SSD - £80
Samsung 250GB 840 Series SSD - £130
SanDisk 256GB Pulse SSD - £130
Any advice on size or brand between these would be much appreciated. As kmac said previously, the Sandisk 128GB Pulse seems to be faster in write speed, but slightly slower in read speeds, although it's random read/write speed is 10 times slower than the Samsung 840.
Samsung 830 is actually faster than 840 but not in production anymore
Not sure about Sandisk personally wouldn't opt for them
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote