[Gaming PC] Best >200gb SSD for under $150

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

Jacob Mennes

Reputable
Jul 16, 2014
57
0
4,640
Title pretty much says it all!

I was looking at getting the intel 730 240gb but after i compared it to my 128 gb Crucial m4, i noticed there was a HUGE difference in benchmarks. The 730 does better than the m4 on just about everything but price...and the huge increase in power usage at idle! I am not an energy freak, but my energy bill is only 40 bucks so i would like to keep it that way XD

I am willing to spend 150 bucks, i think anything over that is overkill for an ssd but if there is huge performance gains, i would do 200.

Im also not sure how the motherboard could effect the speed of the ssd, so here is my motherboard - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128627
(It says its sata 6gb/s so im assuming thats all you need to know)
 
Solution
quilciri
I'm concerned with the metrics on ssd.userbenchmark. It claims Samsung's 850 EVO is faster than Sandisk Extreme PRO, which is laughably untrue.

The EVO may be a bit faster than the ARC 100, but it's also $25 more expensive; not worth the difference at all. Intel's drives tend to focus on reliability over performance, but to a level consumers don't really need. They also charge a premium for their drives.
Sort by date Sort by votes
geofelt

geofelt

Titan
Oct 9, 2006
54,290
4,142
174,240
Do not be much swayed by vendor synthetic SSD benchmarks.
They are done with apps that push the SSD to it's maximum using queue lengths of 30 or so.
Most desktop users will do one or two things at a time, so they will see queue lengths of one or two.
What really counts is the response times, particularly for small random I/O. That is what the os does mostly.
For that, the response times of current SSD's are remarkably similar. And quick.

Larger ssd's perform better, so I would opt for larger if possible.
I like Intel 730 or Samsung 840/850 for quality.
They make their own nand chips and can do a better job of validation.

Ignore ssd power requirements.
Calculate your costs using a nominal 0.5w at idle.
My guess is that it might cost you < $1 per year.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
J

Jacob Mennes

Reputable
Jul 16, 2014
57
0
4,640



I actually got the benchmarks from toms hardware, check out the comparison of benchmarks here - http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/ssd-charts-2014/compare,2811.html?prod%5B6836%5D=on&prod%5B5856%5D=on

@urbanrider
I checked that article out, it says best performance ssd, would that make any noticeable difference for gaming? I do work with unreal engine on a daily basis, so thats also something to consider :O but i would prefer not to spend 200 bucks on a 240gb ssd, I dont really see how its worth that much more (prove me wrong, im still learning here!)

EDIT: I swear the sandisk extreme pro said 200 bucks, i re-read it and its only 150 so thats not bad. But i still dont really know if its really worth the extra 50 bucks. Im not trying to get the best benchmarks between my friends, just want good performance for the price. For example, if the sandisk extreme pro can only boot me into windows .5 seconds faster, its not really something to justify the extra 50 bucks. but if it can cut the load times of planetside 2 by say 1/4, then i could justify it!

Also, i noticed it seems the sandisk is more pointed to laptop platforms (the low battery usage), so it kinda seems like the extra 50 bucks is for if you want more out of a laptop
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
quilciri

quilciri

Splendid
Mar 16, 2012
4,104
4
23,965
The energy usage of an SSD in a desktop is negligible. Even the most power hungry SSD uses less than 10 watts under full load and under 2 watts at idle. a mid-range gaming system uses anywhere between 250-500 watts when pushed.

Your motherboard is fine for any SATA ssd.

Gaming doesn't put a huge workload on the SSD; the difference between current budget SSD's and performance SSD's is small for a system like that, especially when coming from HDD. It's like comparing a corvette to a lamborghini. Yeah there's a difference, but It doesn't matter in 99% of the circumstances we'd be driving them in, and most of us are driving hondas anyway.

My humble suggestion:
OCZ ARC 100 240GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($89.99 @ Newegg)

Cheers!
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
S

Sparktown

Honorable
Jan 28, 2015
129
1
10,695
I've also heard a lot of good things about the Samsung 850 EVO. You can find reviews for it and the Crucial online. The EVO was the 250GB range Performance Pick in the January 2015 Tom's Hardware Best SSDs for the Money buying guide (it's since been unseated by a far more expensive drive). The EVO is normally a little bit more expensive than the Crucial, but sometimes dips to $99.99 on Amazon for a day or so and then goes back up. I've seen this happen at least twice.

If you get the EVO just be aware that you can only take advantage of its 256-AES hardware level encryption feature if your motherboard supports setting up ATA passwords for hard drives in its BIOS. Many manufacturers actually disable this feature because they don't want customers locking themselves out of their own computers and blaming them for it. However, some manufacturers (like AsRock) may be able to give you BIOS patches to re-enable ATA passwords. However, if you don't want/need military-grade hardware-level encryption on your hard drive (few people do), than none of this matters to you.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
J

Jacob Mennes

Reputable
Jul 16, 2014
57
0
4,640
@quilciri
I am leaning towards that SSD, sounds like you are more on my level of what is necessary for a gaming pc

@Sparktown
Ya my computer is in my apartment and only my girlfriend lives with me, not very concerned with security features. Thanks for letting me know!


I wish I could pay yall back in some way XD the most i can do is pick one solution but that only helps one person :/
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
NA_xGG

NA_xGG

Reputable
Jan 12, 2015
350
0
4,860
Samsung 850 EVO owner here.. fast & reliable. For gaming, it will more than suffice and it's sold at a decent price.
You can get the 850 EVO Pro.. but unless you are doing heavy server or multimedia work, it's not necessary.

http://www.cnet.com/products/samsung-ssd-850-evo/
http://www.cnet.com/topics/storage/best-hard-drives-and-storage/ssd/

You can compare here:
http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-850-Pro-256GB-vs-Samsung-850-Evo-250GB/2385vs2977

Edit:

I am a PC gamer.. running multiple games at once sometimes even, and I have never experienced any issues with the 850 EVO.

My rig:

MSI A58M-E33
EVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti SC
AMD Athlon x4 860K Quad Core
G.Skill Sniper Series 8 GB RAM
Samsung 850 EVO 250 GB SSD
WD 750 GB HDD

Edit 2:

Here ya go..

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00OAJ412U/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

Sparktown

Honorable
Jan 28, 2015
129
1
10,695

Pretty sure it was the 850 EVO, but every time I try to find January 2015 list it takes me to the March 2015 list. It would make more sense if I was the PRO, but I really remember it being the EVO. Now I really want to see that list again! Can anyone dig up a copy???

Regardless, the 850 EVO has still gotten pretty good reviews. Definitely worth the OP considering, especially given his budget.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
J

Jacob Mennes

Reputable
Jul 16, 2014
57
0
4,640
Comparing the "OCZ Storage Solutions Arc 100 Series" and the 850 EVO, isnt there a pretty big difference in benchmarks? Like 15 bucks more for double the speed in some of those benchmarks.

115 is more what i would like to spend as well. I wish the 730 was a little cheaper! Yes I am fanboying over the look of it, dont judge me </3 (also its intel, a brand i know more about then EVO or OCZ especially)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
quilciri

quilciri

Splendid
Mar 16, 2012
4,104
4
23,965
The January article doesn't exist on the web anymore, the "best for the money" articles are now posts that get updated each month. Link's to best for january will take you the the current march edition.

However, I absolutely guarantee that the EVO was never the performance pick. The performance pick is the fastest SSD, regardless of budget, and the EVO has never been faster than the PRO, or any of a dozen other manufacturer's performance drives.

The 850 EVO was tom's pick for 240-256gb budget drive, until it was unseated this month by the ARC 100.

The EVO is a great drive, but is sometimes buoyed above better drives by too much regurgitated brand loyalty.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
quilciri

quilciri

Splendid
Mar 16, 2012
4,104
4
23,965
I'm concerned with the metrics on ssd.userbenchmark. It claims Samsung's 850 EVO is faster than Sandisk Extreme PRO, which is laughably untrue.

The EVO may be a bit faster than the ARC 100, but it's also $25 more expensive; not worth the difference at all. Intel's drives tend to focus on reliability over performance, but to a level consumers don't really need. They also charge a premium for their drives.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom