Samsung 840 EVO mSATA SSDs or some other mSATA SSDs? Need suggestions

Need some suggestions guys. There are all mSATA SSDs.

I like Samsung for their low power consumption and speed, but:

1) Again, these are all mSATA SSDs.
2) I trust Samsung for SSDs. The 120GB Samsung has a super low IOPS random write speed of up to 35k only. I've seen some benchmarks and I'm not too impressed with the 120GB in terms of its bigger brothers. I feel Samsung just wants us to pay more for bigger sizes to get the speed...
3) The MyDigitalSSDs get good ratings, but I feel they are hiding the random write/read speeds. I can't find any useful tests anywhere.
4) The Plextor ones get good reviews too, but power consumption from tests I've seen isn't as good as Samsung, and tests confirm that. The reviews are key I guess.
5) Crucial... trustworthy brand, but I'm not impressed with the max sequential write of up to 250MB/sec.

Thanks all!

$111 - Lite On Plextor M5M PX-128M5M 128GB
Max Sequential Read: Up to 540 MB/s
Max Sequential Write: Up to 320 MB/s
4KB Random Read: Up to 80,000 IOPS
4KB Random Write: Up to 76,000 IOPS


$119 - Crucial M500 CT240M500SSD3 240GB
Max Sequential Read: Up to 500MB/s
Max Sequential Write: Up to 250MB/s
4KB Random Read: Up to 72,000 IOPS
4KB Random Write: Up to 60,000 IOPS


$100 - SAMSUNG 840 EVO MZ-MTE120BW 120GB
Max Sequential Read: Up to 540MB/s
Max Sequential Write: Up to 410MB/s
4KB Random Read: Up to 94,000 IOPS
4KB Random Write: Up to 35,000 IOPS


$188 - SAMSUNG 840 EVO MZ-MTE250BW 250GB
Max Sequential Read: Up to 540MB/s
Max Sequential Write: Up to 520MB/s
4KB Random Read: Up to 97,000 IOPS
4KB Random Write: Up to 66,000 IOPS


$75 - MyDigitalSSD Bullet Proof 4 BP4 128GB
Read speed: Up to 560MB/sec
Read speed: Up to 520MB/sec


$90 - MyDigitalSSD SC2 Super Cache 2 (with FNet HybriDisk) 128GB
Read Speed: 540MB/sec (ATTO Bench Test)
Write Speed: 420MB/sec (ATTO Bench Test)


$122 - MyDigitalSSD MDMS-BP4-240 Bullet Proof 4 240GB
Read Speed: Up to 560MB/sec

*************************************************
Update: Thanks all. I will go for the Samsung 256GB mSATA drive for my laptop like I had wanted to. I made the mistake of getting a dumb Mushkin one that like 30% of the users complain about random BSODs and BIOS not detecting it after the BSOD. I returned it to Newegg and the new one isn't doing that anymore, but dead silence from Mushkin has made me never want to touch any of their products anymore. I have the 2.5 inch Pro version and it blows away the competition. I finally found some benchmark tests for the MyDigitalSSD ones. They match up to the Plextor in some tests, but not others. The Plextor is close to the Samsung 256GB+ one, but the Samsung beats it on pretty much all levels. Just don't get the 120GB Samsung version.
6 answers Last reply
More about samsung 840 evo msata ssds msata ssds suggestions
  1. For which use ? If multiplayer games on it and heavy programs, go with for example : the corsair force-GT or samsung Pro-series or for me till now the best choice, the OCZ Vertex 4 and if for booting and start programmes go with corsair GS or OCZ agility or the Evo that you mension is really good to.
    I'v like tested 6 different ssd's so I know some of it. But I have no experiance with the intel's and crucials.
  2. The recommendations I've heard and read are:
    1. for best performance/reliability go with Kingston or Samsung
    2. The less you use, in proportion, the longer it will last
    3. If you do mostly writes to, as opposed to reads from the disk, ie: heavy database or transaction (read-modify-write) operations, go with an enterprise level drive. Much more expensive, but much longer life and reliability.
    4. If you arrange your system to restrict the SSD to the base operating system, with all data files and installed program files, including the disk cache file, on a separate whirlydisk (Windows will allow this), then almost any SSD will work and last a long time.

    The problem with SSDs is a finite write cycle life - usually 2,000 to 3,000 writes per memory cell before it starts failing. This is mitigated by using a small proportion of the drive actively - certainly less than 50%, and not doing foolish and unnecessary things like trying to defrag the SSD. Remember, an SSD is memory, not spinning rust. You gain no advantage by defragging.

    I would suggest doing the initial installation and setup on a whirlydisk partition sized to match the intended SSD. Make two partitions on the disk, the first being the SSD size and the second the remainder of the drive. Once the second partition is set up, delete the first partition and install Windows into the unallocated space. Windows will make two partitions in it, one 100 or 300MB "System Reserved" partition, and the remainder of the space for Windows.

    When all setup operations are completed, and the system is running well, then create an image of the boot disk - BOTH partitions and the MBR - with Acronis True Image or some such utility.

    DO NOT ACTIVATE Windows at this stage.

    Recover the stored image to the new SSD - MBR plus both partitions, boot the disk, THEN activate it at your leisure. I would preserve the image file to provide a starting point if you need to rebuild the system in the future.
  3. while for the life of me i cannot find the link (believe me i've tried many times since i found the site) i found a site which had actual MTBF testing of various ssd drives. the only drives which significantly exceeded those numbers were from samsung and intel. the rest of the brands were far less than the proposed figures.

    therefore i personally only use and recommend samsung (or intel) drives despite the performance data.

    agreed.. if you do mostly reads you can get away with just about any disk however if you do lots of writes you will want something like an 840pro or other higher reliability disk.
  4. @ssddx:
    I found this article:

    http://techreport.com/review/24841/introducing-the-ssd-endurance-experiment

    Is this what you're looking for?
    .
  5. ssddx said:
    while for the life of me i cannot find the link (believe me i've tried many times since i found the site) i found a site which had actual MTBF testing of various ssd drives. the only drives which significantly exceeded those numbers were from samsung and intel. the rest of the brands were far less than the proposed figures.

    therefore i personally only use and recommend samsung (or intel) drives despite the performance data.

    agreed.. if you do mostly reads you can get away with just about any disk however if you do lots of writes you will want something like an 840pro or other higher reliability disk.


    Just finished the article cited above. I don't think we'll have an problem with ANY SSD in a normal PC application. According to them, ALL of the drives passed the 600TB write threshold with performance and room to spare. That's 300GB per day for 5 years, of writing. Somehow, I don't think even I will gat anywhere near that level. SSDs are GOOD - ALL of them!
    .
  6. @dav

    no, it was not an article written by journalists or tech sites.

    it was a forum based test that hundreds of users participated in and aggregated all the results together. all of the results were grouped into a table. it was a great source of information... but for the life of me i just cant find it again.

    .... this here looks like it might be the information i was looking for... however i seem to remember a bigger chart like the first page has except for many more entries. perhaps its burried in the post somewhere..

    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?271063-SSD-Write-Endurance-25nm-Vs-34nm&highlight=ssd+write+endurance

    basically ssd write endurance testing.
Ask a new question

Read More

Evo Solid State Samsung Storage SSD Speed