Who is the Best SSD?
- Thread starter saarxee
- Start date
I say Rapid is better.... sometimes.
M500 is most definitely better (faster) than a HDD but it will have less storage space per money than a HDD.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-recommendation-benchmark,3269-2.html
Apparently the speeds quoted in this chart are without Rapid Mode:
Yogi
Like I said earlier, not enough info to make a proper suggestion. I'm not going to spit out products at you with the only info given being SATAII. I want to help you, not make a fanboy PR post disguised as a forum response.
The question now is whether you want a SSD at all. Depending on your usage, you may want a hybrid drive of some sort instead for example.
I will for one say this though. I do not recommend both the Samsung and the Crucial. The Samsung is inherently bad due to a technology called TLC, but mostly, it is a premium product which has speed boosting technologies that you won't take advantage of with SATA II. The Crucial is a similar story. There are cheaper drives that would provide the same speed as it for less.
But as I said, give me more info.
The question now is whether you want a SSD at all. Depending on your usage, you may want a hybrid drive of some sort instead for example.
I will for one say this though. I do not recommend both the Samsung and the Crucial. The Samsung is inherently bad due to a technology called TLC, but mostly, it is a premium product which has speed boosting technologies that you won't take advantage of with SATA II. The Crucial is a similar story. There are cheaper drives that would provide the same speed as it for less.
But as I said, give me more info.
Good thinking.
I believe that one should almost always buy the latest technology with an eye toward future possible upgrades so that one is not buying "old technology" which will soon become obsolete.
The Evo is an excellent choice and will serve you well - now and in the future.
Yogi
I would disagree strongly.
First off, buying over-the-top technology 'with an eye toward future upgrades' or 'future-proofing' is a terrible idea in computers, and ESPECIALLY in storage.
Ask the people who jumped at the first Terabyte hard drives how they feel 5 years later when they finally hit the capacity barrier. Good job with spending $100+ extra to buy 500 gigs of extra data that you didn't even use for like 2 years.
And now we come to you. Your example is even worse, as unless you get an ENTIRELY new system, you will NEVER be able to use the potential performance of the EVO. So basically, for the time between SSD purchase and complete system overhaul, you are more or less throwing away money. So much for 'future investment'.
But wait! There's more! Just like Hard drives, SSD performance/money and capacity/money is always increasing. So by the time that the hypothetical 'upgrade time' comes around, a much much better SSD will be available for much much less money.
And still more! Remember how I told you how the EVO was inherently bad? It uses a technology called TLC to lower cost that reduces overall drive endurance and long term reliability. The whole point being that power users who replace their SSDs often wouldn't care about it if it were for the performance/cost increases. However, in your case, you will not be able to take advantage of the performance increase due to SATAII. Thus, if you bought this drive, you are spending MORE money on a drive that is inherently WORSE in terms of reliability and endurance than both the Kingston and the Crucial.
To wrap things up, there is no reason under the sun that you should buy the EVO when there are all the alternatives available. Like the Crucial. Or the PNY XLR8 and Optima SSDs which are currently extremely cheap.
First off, buying over-the-top technology 'with an eye toward future upgrades' or 'future-proofing' is a terrible idea in computers, and ESPECIALLY in storage.
Ask the people who jumped at the first Terabyte hard drives how they feel 5 years later when they finally hit the capacity barrier. Good job with spending $100+ extra to buy 500 gigs of extra data that you didn't even use for like 2 years.
And now we come to you. Your example is even worse, as unless you get an ENTIRELY new system, you will NEVER be able to use the potential performance of the EVO. So basically, for the time between SSD purchase and complete system overhaul, you are more or less throwing away money. So much for 'future investment'.
But wait! There's more! Just like Hard drives, SSD performance/money and capacity/money is always increasing. So by the time that the hypothetical 'upgrade time' comes around, a much much better SSD will be available for much much less money.
And still more! Remember how I told you how the EVO was inherently bad? It uses a technology called TLC to lower cost that reduces overall drive endurance and long term reliability. The whole point being that power users who replace their SSDs often wouldn't care about it if it were for the performance/cost increases. However, in your case, you will not be able to take advantage of the performance increase due to SATAII. Thus, if you bought this drive, you are spending MORE money on a drive that is inherently WORSE in terms of reliability and endurance than both the Kingston and the Crucial.
To wrap things up, there is no reason under the sun that you should buy the EVO when there are all the alternatives available. Like the Crucial. Or the PNY XLR8 and Optima SSDs which are currently extremely cheap.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News Microsoft updates Windows 11 24H2 requirements, CPU must support SSE4.2 or the OS will not boot- Started by Admin
- Replies: 14
-
-
-
Question New Build GPU help- ASRock Steel Legend OC Radeon RX 7900 GRE - Keeps turning off
- Started by bp240
- Replies: 6
-
Question How can I make my AMD GPU scale *all* resolutions to 1080p, even resolutions that are "supported" by my TV?
- Started by Sol33t303
- Replies: 7
Latest posts
-
-
-
Question User RX 580 8gb red devil powercolor, asking original BIOS- Latest: PizzaInGame
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram