Which SATA 2 SSD?

Have finally decided it is time to plunge into an SSD for my main desktop, in the range from 96GB to 128GB, but have no idea which one to choose. As my motherboard is only SATA 2, it seems that I won't see much difference in terms of sequential read/write between drives, but does this mean that I should automatically rule out SATA 3 drives, due to their higher price? Aside from that, I have heard a lot of bad things about the Sandforce-based drives lately, which seems to rule out OCZ (especially the Vertex 2, which I was seriously considering). This seems to leave me with:

Intel 320 120Gb
Crucial m4 128GB
Kingston V+100 96GB

Prices range widely between the Kingston and the other two, but are they worth the premium? Are there any others I should consider?

Thanks for any help offered.

What is your budget? It's probably better to start from there and see what you can get, when the price range for your suggestions is ~£100-£185.

SATA 6Gbps is only worth it if you'll carry the drive over to another motherboard in future.

Would go as high as £160, but would prefer to spend less if the gains are small.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdvWar

Intel 320 120Gb
Crucial m4 128GB
Kingston V+100 96GB

Prices range widely between the Kingston and the other two

---

That's probably because you're looking at the 96GB Kingston, not one of their 128GB models.

What operating system do you have? If you're running Windows 7 I suggest the Intel or the Crucial, which have TRIM support. AFAIK, the Kingston has OS independent file management instead of TRIM, which basically means it will work better with OSs that don't support TRIM, i.e. anything other than Windows 7.

This 128GB, JMicron-based, £146 Kingston is one I've been using for 6 months and had no problems with.

The same vendor also has a smaller, Sandforce-based 120GB OCZ for £150 which supports SATA 6Gbps (and so can max out your SATA 3Gbps link).

Both do TRIM. The OCZ will be faster (but will you notice?) and smaller (but will you notice??)

Using Windows 7. I'm still hesitant to consider any Sandforce drives, due to all of the information regarding slow-down over time. Besides, is the Solid 3 faster than the vertex 2?

If you want to see what drives are the fastest, http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/ has a league table. If you click on the High End Chart, you'll see the Solid 3 is quite a bit faster (at least according to PassMark's benchmarks!)

The Kingston is £95 from Ebuyer:

http://forums.hexus.net/shopping-ret...ed-ebuyer.html

The Intel 320 series has a 5 year warranty.

I went with Intel in my Laptop and HTPC because the reliability of their previous drives was good and they have a 5yr warranty.

In my new desktop I got a Crucial m4, Crucial is backed by a major vendor and their support is good, the gaming tests seemed to favour them.

I hesitate over Sandforce as well, their performance can very wildly depending on how compressible the data is, and there is the durability question as well. Good headline numbers though, and some drives do compare well with the m4, but not all (Vertex 3 is one that does).

The Crucial m4 is looking like the best choice to me so far, but how much of a performance hit will I be taking by running it on a SATA 2 motherboard?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdvWar

The Crucial m4 is looking like the best choice to me so far, but how much of a performance hit will I be taking by running it on a SATA 2 motherboard?

---

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4253/t...0-ssd-review/8

Orange bar is SATA2, purple is SATA3.

Realistically, you won't notice any real world difference between a fast SSD bottlenecked by a SATAII interface and a fast SSD on SATA3. The sequential figures look impressive on benchmark charts, but it's the much faster random access that really makes a difference compared to mechanical drives, and any SSD will be a massive upgrade. Unless you're planning on upgrading to a SATA3-sporting motherboard soon, *and* you care about e-peen enhancing benchmarks, you may as well stick with a SATAII SSD.

Given that, bought through ebuyer, the Kingston V+100 finally breaks the £1/GB mark, I'd be inclined to go for that. If you're going to fill 96GB then you're going to fill 128GB and you'll need some mechnical storage anyway. The difference in price is not insignificant: you can get the 96GB Kingston + a 1TB mechanical drive for less than any 128GB SSD...

May want to put off any Intel purchases for a bit..
http://communities.intel.com/thread/22227?tstart=0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scaryjim

Realistically, you won't notice any real world difference between a fast SSD bottlenecked by a SATAII interface and a fast SSD on SATA3. The sequential figures look impressive on benchmark charts, but it's the much faster random access that really makes a difference compared to mechanical drives, and any SSD will be a massive upgrade. Unless you're planning on upgrading to a SATA3-sporting motherboard soon, *and* you care about e-peen enhancing benchmarks, you may as well stick with a SATAII SSD.

Given that, bought through ebuyer, the Kingston V+100 finally breaks the £1/GB mark, I'd be inclined to go for that. If you're going to fill 96GB then you're going to fill 128GB and you'll need some mechnical storage anyway. The difference in price is not insignificant: you can get the 96GB Kingston + a 1TB mechanical drive for less than any 128GB SSD...

---

I have this exact setup that jims speaks of and firstly someone has said the kingston doesn't doesn't have trim support thats FALSE it does secondly jim is right for cost its superb its miles faster than my mechanical drive i have a couple of games on the ssd and all my other data on my 1tb drive it works really well.