Storage Solutions Which SSD is faster?

Why do you even want to consider that used 2013 model Intel SSD as an option? You realize that an SSD has a fixed I/O life and that this SSD has been used in an enterprise? A brand SSD of any make would be a better buy than that.
 
I have been looking at that Silicon power as well. Their reviews on Amazon.com are pretty solid. My only concern is after sales support.

Anyone dealt with them?
 
Buy kingston uv400 or sandisk ssdplus.
Don't buy silicon power or crucial.
Crucial does not even have service center in India and you will have to send it to taiwan or europe for RMA.
Buying used SSD is never good because of its limited cycle.

Buy from onlyssd.com
It is primeabgb's site for ssd and they have very good prices you can compare them to your offline stores.
 
No suggestions for the best ssd!Just buy Samsung 860 Evo(even if it means spending 1.5k extra by waiting a few more weeks to save) & if you are in any doubt then check any ssd review,they all compare any newly released ssd performance to corresponding Samsung ssd as benchmark(especially in budget segment).Only option to not buy Samsung ssd is when your budget is below 3.5k & you are sure about never needing more than 120gb ssd in next 3-4 years. If your budget is 4.3k then don't even look at other options besides Samsung. Also crucial performance is much better than Kingston UV400 or sandisk ssdplus but because they have no service centre in India it is a matter of taking chance.
 
I have used Intel (3 variants, 520, and 2 enterprise variants), Samsung (750,840,850), Crucial (MX300) and Kingston (UV something)

I feel that in terms of raw performance, Samsung is the winner, followed by Intel, Crucial and Kingston.

In terms of reliability, none of them have failed so far, but I feel Intel is more reliable...
 
No suggestions for the best ssd!Just buy Samsung 860 Evo(even if it means spending 1.5k extra by waiting a few more weeks to save) & if you are in any doubt then check any ssd review,they all compare any newly released ssd performance to corresponding Samsung ssd as benchmark(especially in budget segment).Only option to not buy Samsung ssd is when your budget is below 3.5k & you are sure about never needing more than 120gb ssd in next 3-4 years. If your budget is 4.3k then don't even look at other options besides Samsung. Also crucial performance is much better than Kingston UV400 or sandisk ssdplus but because they have no service centre in India it is a matter of taking chance.

Its kind of pointless as far as SATA 3 goes. As long as it can achieve 500 Mbps+ Read/Write the cheapest available option is good enough given the bottleneck of the interface. For NVMe however, Samsung makes sense.
 
Its kind of pointless as far as SATA 3 goes. As long as it can achieve 500 Mbps+ Read/Write the cheapest available option is good enough given the bottleneck of the interface. For NVMe however, Samsung makes sense.
It is not pointless as sequential read write speeds are not the reason why ssd are so fast as OS & installed program drive but it is their IOPS performance & random 4k read write speeds. This is what differentiates Samsung Evo series from their cheaper counterparts & the reason why Samsung ssd dominates the market. Another big factor is their proven track record & reliability. You get what you paid for in Samsung while sandisk,Kingston etc are infamous for switching their hardware between reviews & actual selling of shipments or in between shipments making it a case of lottery where you may get a better performing or worse performing version at same cost. What's the point in saving 1.5k by getting a decidedly inferior ssd by all accounts,it's not like you can upgrade anything significant in a PC with this extra 1.5k(& if you can then you probably shouldn't be looking at a ssd in the first place).
 
^^ There isn't much difference in Random 4k read/write performance between Samsung 860 Evo and say Crucial MX500

The point is that when you are looking for a cheap upgrade, there is not much point trying to spend a 25-30% premium for the best product which may only be marginally better.

An entry level SSD like these are a substantial upgrade over any HDD even if its not the best and that is what the goal usually is at a budget.

Now, if you are trying to spend a premium for a NVMe SSD, I would much rather spend it on a Samsung 970 Evo or Pro than on some other make
 
Crucial MX500 250gb costs Rs.5350 with no service centre in India while Samsung Evo 860 250gb costs Rs.5675 & comes with 5 years warranty with after sales support in India. Tell me which sane person would then buy crucial over Samsung.

Now cheaper alternatives are SanDisk SSD Plus 240GB costing Rs.3950,Kingston A400 240GB costing Rs.4250 & WD Green 240GB costing Rs.4549.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dramless-ssd-roundup,4833-8.html
Given the wide variety of components used in the SSD Plus, it's not surprising that SanDisk doesn't list random performance or any endurance ratings. Given what we know now, SanDisk doesn't specify any real performance guarantee beyond the claimed "up to" sequential performance specifications. We've seen the SSD Plus 240GB with both MLC and TLC flash. You can roll the dice, or just buy a product with higher performance for the same price.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dramless-ssd-roundup,4833-10.html
Given what vendors told us about the endurance of this emerging category, I'd also be worried about long-term data retention. It's time to worry when a DRAMless controller manufacturer says it's possible to kill a drive in a little over a year.SanDisk does not advertise the SSD Plus and Z410 as DRAMless products. SanDisk doesn’t really advertise the SSD Plus as anything other than an SSD. The variable BOM is confusing, even for me, and I do this for a living. Claiming an SSD has roughly up to 550 MB/s sequential read and ~440 MB/s sequential write performance is vague, at best. Not only does this drive lack the DRAM cache that would make it an uncompetitive entry-level SSD, but SanDisk also advertises it with nearly identical product specifications as the DRAM-equipped equivalents.

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Kingston-A400-240GB-vs-Samsung-860-Evo-250GB/3953vs3949
upload_2018-6-18_20-24-16.png
http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/WD-Green-240GB-2016-vs-Samsung-860-Evo-250GB/m204096vs3949
upload_2018-6-18_20-31-21.png

selected 2016 version for WD as 2018 version has much poorer benchmarks so selected better benchmark version to give a fair comparison against Samsung evo

Also if you search around you will find that neither Kingston A400 nor WD Green has a detailed review on major tech sites like tomshardware or anadtech unlike sandisk ssdplus which should tell you something.

Now the main point like you said here is "looking for cheap upgrade" in which case an even cheaper 120gb ssd(sandisk ssdplus at ~2.3k) makes more sense because it is enough for an OS install & is still faster than a hdd. The main point is why would you buy a 240gb ssd if you are not going to install at least 100gb of games on it because for storage even 1Tb is not enough for many people nowadays. Now if you are going to buy 240gb ssd because you are going to install 100gb of games on it then obviously you are looking for performance in which case what's the point in saving 1.5k for getting a much faster & better ssd(excluding crucial MX500 of course as I said in opening line of this post) because you are not going to get any worthwhile upgrade for that 1.5k in a gaming pc anyway.

NVMe are for a very specific usage scenario outside of most typical home consumer usage scenarios. You won't get any significant improvement by using NVMe as a boot drive over using a good sata ssd like Evo pro but you will get a significant boost if you are using NVMe as a scratch disk for very demanding usage like 4k/8k video editing on the fly or very complex 3d rendering model etc.
 
The reason is that people usually come with a budget and then need to fit in things. Assume that I can save 2K on the SSD and get something still quite fast, I would go for it and try to put that money in other things. Plus speed is a user to user scenario. My collegue who is using the Kingston UV400/480GB says its quite fast while I find it slow.

Plus most SSDs now have an endurance of 5 years, which cannot be said for a majority of the HDDs. And, coming to 120 vs 240 debate, 120 is not enough for most users especially gamers. And if you know your SSDs, you will overprovision upto 10% for extended life.
 
^^That's the point I am trying to make, you won't get anything worth saving 1.7k(approx. difference in ssdplus & evo 250gb) in a budget gaming PC for most people(aka you won't get a much faster processor for extra 1.7k,you won't get a much better quality mobo for extra 1.7k & you certainly won't get a top tier gold certified psu for extra 1.7k assuming all current components already at best budget value).

Samsung gives 5 years warranty while sandisk ssdplus,Kingston a400 & WD green gives 3 years warranty which in itself implies better endurance & reliability of Samsung.

120GB is more than enough for majority of users who don't play games,a typical properly maintained 64bit windows(7/8.1/10) install takes ~30GB & add office & other essential softwares it can still be managed within 50-60GB.If a typical user is needing more than that then either he is not a typical user(maybe using VMs or encoding or large databases etc or 100+GB steam game library or the type to install every free/trial software from any source) or he is not using windows correctly(aka leave win restore points & shadow copies & recycle bin to takes tens of gb of free space).Of course 120gb ssd performance is poor compared to 250gb versions but still faster than hdd & money saved is ~3.5k which can certainly be used for buying a much better processor or mobo or much better gfx card considering long term usage. Of course if one has the budget then it is better to go for 250gb ssd even if you will never be using more than 60-70gb on that.
 
The Samsung SSD's are the best on price/performance/warranty for people living in India. Just get the 860 EVO's
Do not go for those cheap Kingston/WD SSD's or Crucial which don't have aftersales services in India.
And btw onlyssd site has adware popups on mobile.
 
Last edited:
^^That's the point I am trying to make, you won't get anything worth saving 1.7k(approx. difference in ssdplus & evo 250gb) in a budget gaming PC for most people(aka you won't get a much faster processor for extra 1.7k,you won't get a much better quality mobo for extra 1.7k & you certainly won't get a top tier gold certified psu for extra 1.7k assuming all current components already at best budget value).

Samsung gives 5 years warranty while sandisk ssdplus,Kingston a400 & WD green gives 3 years warranty which in itself implies better endurance & reliability of Samsung.

Why are you assuming that he needs to go and spend that extra cash on some PC component? This is not a new build thread and he is not asking suggestion for a few build as far as I can see. The Thread starter is only asking for opinion on two SSD's both of which are under 4.5k. One of those choices included an used Intel SSD from some enterprise. So, I can only assume that the price point is important to him. You are suggesting an option that is at a 20-25% higher price point. Nothing wrong in suggesting, but you are trying to portray it as the only option he has..

And btw, the crucial MX500 was available for 4.6k odd when I last checked.

Warranty wise, Corsair has the best after sales support in India. Both times I had to RMA by Corsair SSD's, I was given brand new replacements within 2 days.
I don't know where Samsung stands on that front for SSD's. Its one thing to have a 5 year warranty and a completely different thing for that after sales to be good which very few brands in India have. What is their after sales for SSD like and do they issue brand new replacements are refurbished units and what is the wait time?

I am myself currently running a Sandisk Extreme Pro 480GB bought from US and it does have global warranty, but never had reason to avail. I am planning to get a Samsung 970 Evo 500GB NVMe for my new build, but It will also likely be from US without warranty given the bad pricing in India.

120GB is more than enough for majority of users who don't play games,a typical properly maintained 64bit windows(7/8.1/10) install takes ~30GB & add office & other essential softwares it can still be managed within 50-60GB.If a typical user is needing more than that then either he is not a typical user(maybe using VMs or encoding or large databases etc or 100+GB steam game library or the type to install every free/trial software from any source) or he is not using windows correctly(aka leave win restore points & shadow copies & recycle bin to takes tens of gb of free space).Of course 120gb ssd performance is poor compared to 250gb versions but still faster than hdd & money saved is ~3.5k which can certainly be used for buying a much better processor or mobo or much better gfx card considering long term usage. Of course if one has the budget then it is better to go for 250gb ssd even if you will never be using more than 60-70gb on that.

You are just making far too many assumptions that don't necessarily hold true. There are a lot of casual users out there who don't necessarily game or into VM's and development tools,. but still have a 100 GB audio/video library and only a single drive keep everything. You are assuming that everybody can install a secondary hard disk for extra storage. What about people who are on a laptop? You forgot that people can install SSD's into laptops? It is not too uncommon for people to buy a cheap SSD and extra RAM to add a new lease of life into an aging laptop.

Disk Space is something that can always be made use of regardless of type of user. Throughput is not something that can always be used.
 
And, coming to 120 vs 240 debate, 120 is not enough for most users especially gamers. And if you know your SSDs, you will overprovision upto 10% for extended life.

Err, take a look at my OS drive, Disk 0. It's an 840 EVO 120, partitioned into dual boot XP and 7. Drives C and E. I agree, gaming would require much more. But i'm pretty close to most users. ;)
 

Attachments

  • untitled.JPG
    untitled.JPG
    114.3 KB · Views: 162
Why are you assuming that he needs to go and spend that extra cash on some PC component? This is not a new build thread and he is not asking suggestion for a few build as far as I can see. The Thread starter is only asking for opinion on two SSD's both of which are under 4.5k. One of those choices included an used Intel SSD from some enterprise. So, I can only assume that the price point is important to him. You are suggesting an option that is at a 20-25% higher price point. Nothing wrong in suggesting, but you are trying to portray it as the only option he has..

And btw, the crucial MX500 was available for 4.6k odd when I last checked.

Warranty wise, Corsair has the best after sales support in India. Both times I had to RMA by Corsair SSD's, I was given brand new replacements within 2 days.
I don't know where Samsung stands on that front for SSD's. Its one thing to have a 5 year warranty and a completely different thing for that after sales to be good which very few brands in India have. What is their after sales for SSD like and do they issue brand new replacements are refurbished units and what is the wait time?

I am myself currently running a Sandisk Extreme Pro 480GB bought from US and it does have global warranty, but never had reason to avail. I am planning to get a Samsung 970 Evo 500GB NVMe for my new build, but It will also likely be from US without warranty given the bad pricing in India.



You are just making far too many assumptions that don't necessarily hold true. There are a lot of casual users out there who don't necessarily game or into VM's and development tools,. but still have a 100 GB audio/video library and only a single drive keep everything. You are assuming that everybody can install a secondary hard disk for extra storage. What about people who are on a laptop? You forgot that people can install SSD's into laptops? It is not too uncommon for people to buy a cheap SSD and extra RAM to add a new lease of life into an aging laptop.

Disk Space is something that can always be made use of regardless of type of user. Throughput is not something that can always be used.
I was just suggesting an alternative,op may or may not have extra cash but he didn't exactly specified his budget so I just gave him another option that perform better. Maybe your assumption is right,maybe my assumption is right,who knows.If he says he can not spend extra then I won't add anything further.

https://www.onlyssd.com/product/crucial-mx500-2-5-250gb-sata-iii-3d-ssd-ct250mx500ssd1/
Available for 5350 & I would prefer primeabgb over other sellers for buying ssd.

I have yet to see a negative comment/post on any major tech forum in India regarding Samsung evo ssd after sales support. I am assuming that's because very few actually need it.

All the casual users I know who own laptops & got a ssd use their existing usually 1TB hdd as portable drive or get it installed in a caddy. As for desktop users I have yet to meet a casual/typical user(online based on build suggestions or offline) who only uses 1 ssd in their system(in fact one such user just posted above this post).
 
Err, take a look at my OS drive, Disk 0. It's an 840 EVO 120, partitioned into dual boot XP and 7. Drives C and E. I agree, gaming would require much more. But i'm pretty close to most users. ;)

I too am using a 840 EVO 120GB in one of my laptops. And it is not enough. Hell, I find that even 240 is a squeeze, but then that is because I keep multiple ISOs with me on hand.

Secondly, most users will not have the assortment of drives you have - hence you are not most users. Those who need to store some videos/music/large files will find it difficult to manage on the 120GB.
 
Back
Top