After seeing the sheer speed that my bosses new Crucial M225 256Gb performs at i've decided that I'd quite fancy putting one in my machine, although a much smaller, cheaper version (ideally 64Gb) and price low as possible (£130 max). I've seen the crucial one at about that price after some discounts but am wondering how good it is compared to the other manufacturers, all suggestions welcome, or i could wait and see if the prices come down.....
could someone also shed a but if light on the kingston desktop kits as there seems to be 2 different drives by the looks of things with 1 being quoted at speeds of 80/100mb/s and another at 200/110mb/s with TRIM, have they changed their controllers or drives in the last few months?
SSD naming is a nightmare, especially with OCZ and Kingston drives. Basically they launched the V-Series, then they made a faster V-Series and called it the V+ and now they've made something in between and called it... the V-Series. The new ones use a Toshiba controller based on JMicron's new design. It's apparently not a bad drive, and really quite a good buy at ~£120 (the yanks get it better as usual though, ~$140!). I'm not sure how it stacks up to the Crucial though.Originally Posted by marshalex
If you find the answer pop a post up. I've been wondering which one is the better drive, but reviews on the new Kingston drive are sparse at the moment and the only one I've read compares it against the new 256MB Crucial driveReviewers need a good slap when it comes to testing SSDs. I know they're only sent certain drives and therefore have a limited selection to compare against, but why even bother referencing top-end drives in a budget review? They don't do it with other kit
this is exactly my problem, lack of reviews for the lower end of the market drives, which to be honest are the ones most common consumers would be interested in from a pricing perspective. currently its all just one big minefield at the moment with new ones coming out on a seeminly daily basis with a tweak here and there to increase speeds etc.SSD naming is a nightmare, especially with OCZ and Kingston drives. Basically they launched the V-Series, then they made a faster V-Series and called it the V+ and now they've made something in between and called it... the V-Series. The new ones use a Toshiba controller based on JMicron's new design. It's apparently not a bad drive, and really quite a good buy at ~£120 (the yanks get it better as usual though, ~$140!). I'm not sure how it stacks up to the Crucial though.
If you find the answer pop a post up. I've been wondering which one is the better drive, but reviews on the new Kingston drive are sparse at the moment and the only one I've read compares it against the new 256MB Crucial drive
Hexus reviewers - If you are reading this start reviewing the cheaper drives for us common folk to buy!
I'd say that Samsung is much worse. By marking their 'series', you can at least differentiate the various controller controllers with a simple Google. I find Samsung the hardest to tell apart because while we know that they use their own controllers, updates are not stated in obvious fashion.
I dare say that there are no 'cheap' SSD, at least if you care about £/GB. With rare special offers, they are all over £2/GB with JMicron drives being occasional exceptions.
Anandtech tested a fairly large number of drives but obviously not all capacity. Just click any of the recent reviews (http://www.anandtech.com/storage) and you will find charts (pay attention to random read/write). For your budget, I'd look for a 40GB drive based on Intel controller.
Last edited by TooNice; 14-03-2010 at 05:38 AM.
I had looked at the intel 40Gb drive which i've seen for under £100, however what puts me off that is the write speed of only 35mb/s, which is poor compared to some of the slightly more expensive 64gb drives
Sequential write may be uninspiring (all Intel based drives have a modest sequential write speed), but at 35MB/sec it's 4k random write is superior to anything that is not SandForce or higher capacity Intel: http://www.anandtech.com/storage/sho...spx?i=3757&p=5.
true, and the read speed is much higher on top of that which makes it more appealing, its the sequential which annoys me, but i suppose once windows + apps are installed I wont notice it at all
Exactly. With 45MB/sec is not likely to bottleneck your installations unless you are doing it from another HD for some reason. Of course, triple digit sequential transfer is nice to look at/have, but I'd say that compared to more expensive drives, it took the performance hit where it mattered least.
very true, if only it was that little bit bigger! how big is a clean win 7 pro install? i cant remember how much it was since i first did it. I'm guessing no more than 20gb?
I was considering a Crucial M225 (64GB) just for the 5 year warranty. And the fast RMA turn around as they have a place in Scotland.
I decided to wait and see if prices dropped, but prices have really jumped up since the release. When I looked they were available for around £100 from August onwards in 2009.
thats what i've been doing but due to the weak pound we're getting higher prices on most things electrical now. this is whats swaying me towards the crucial, 5 years warranty is quite a big thing, especially on new tech, however you do pay a premium for it and don't get any bonuses such as brackets/cables. Really would like to see some results for the SSD Now V series g2 as they're much improved over the first generation, though I cant seem to find a recent review for them anywhere.
btw does anyone have any opinions on this? seems to have a much higher write speed or is this a mistake on scans part? http://www.scan.co.uk/product.aspx?ProductId=34904
Last edited by marshalex; 15-03-2010 at 03:14 PM.
Just reinstalled win 7 home premium on my new Intel 40g and it was 14gb in total, leaving more space then I thought. Guess pro would be pretty similar.
that sounds not too bad at all. keep me updated on size and usage if you could as this is one of the drives i'm interested in but think 40gb might not be enough. so far i've managed to get my OS drive partition down to around 26gb (i've relocated page files and all sorts off the drive to get it that small!)
Still used less than 25gb including Office and Photoshop, but no games. I was thinking of putting GTA on as would fit, but as it takes so much space decided to partition off another drive for a games drive. Not changed page files and haven't set system restore. My old C drive through lazyness was 70gb. Definatly worth it, just need to keep the maintenance there.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote