Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best + Cheapest SSD

Last response: in Storage
Share
August 11, 2009 10:29:24 PM

Instead of buying a HDD, i thought i might as well get an SSD, although i dunno which one to buy, one thats around 100-200$ and has a nice reading rate, Or two SSD's that are like 100$ each and put them in RAID 0 or such

More about : cheapest ssd

a b G Storage
August 12, 2009 12:11:38 AM

One of the best you can get is the new X25-M G2 from Intel, 230$ for 80GB, but currently out of stock everywhere because of firmware bug, but a patch was released today so they should be available soon. If you really want to go for the lower priced ones, the Kingston SSDNow V series is ~140$ for 64GB. If you are serious in wanting a SSD, I would bite the bullet and get an Intel, the difference is quite noticeable. Look at the last few graphs, the random read and write. They are probably the most significant results for an OS/Application drive. Sequential write is, my opinion here, more significant for a DATA drive where you store large multimedia files.
August 12, 2009 12:20:36 AM

Do they have smaller versions of the X25-M G2? smaller in GB i mean
Related resources
a b G Storage
August 12, 2009 12:24:09 AM

The smallest is the 80GB.
August 12, 2009 12:35:50 AM

Damn, so dont mind me asking...SSD's are just the same like HDD's, in like hooking up and all? Do you need some kind of special cable or anything? And can you still have a hot swappable HD while using a SSD? or are they all the same thing in terms.
a b G Storage
August 12, 2009 12:47:05 AM

Connecting a SSD is just like connecting a standard HDD yes. The only difference you may find is that SSD have the 2.5 inches form factor normally used in laptops so if you want to hook them in standard 3.5" HDD bays, you will need some metal brackets to fill the gap (less than 10$).
August 12, 2009 3:59:16 AM

Get a vertex 30Gb @ 144.00$$$
August 12, 2009 4:04:55 AM

yeah i was looking at the vertex, dident know they had it in 30GB! Cool, i could stick em in RAID 0 >:] lol
August 12, 2009 4:09:14 AM

+1 to the entry/middle-level OCZ drives.
August 12, 2009 4:15:00 AM

But then again I would recommend dual Cav Black 640's in Raid0.....

1.23 terrabytes of space and more less the same speed of that Vertex....
August 12, 2009 9:30:59 AM

@ovrclkr

Yea i was thinking of the Cav Black's but then i thought an SSD would be faster and more future proof, why did you say 1.23 terrabytes of storage space if there in RAID 0?
a b G Storage
August 12, 2009 10:51:35 AM

I would like to point-out that putting drives in RAID might improve sequential read and write, but not necessarily random r/w.
August 12, 2009 11:46:23 AM

I've got 2 Intel X25-M Gen 2 disk, on 80 GB each, and I'm about to throw them in raid 0, as the million dollar question arises: What stripe size?

Any hints or pointers would be nice, cause I really am somewhat puzzled by it. All the different info I can find through google points in different directions.
a b G Storage
August 12, 2009 11:50:42 AM

I'm waiting for 120GB SSDs with decent controllers to be <$200.
August 12, 2009 3:35:32 PM

computernewbie said:
@ovrclkr

Yea i was thinking of the Cav Black's but then i thought an SSD would be faster and more future proof, why did you say 1.23 terrabytes of storage space if there in RAID 0?


Because when you raid the PC sees the HD as ONE and not 2 drives.....Once formatted they are 590GB x2 =1.23TB
a c 351 G Storage
August 12, 2009 7:01:20 PM

Make SURE the SSD will support the Trim function (available with win 7)

Prefer Intel 80 Gig G2
Alternatives I’m looking at
As One poster said, prices may drop some (not a lot) when Intel ships revamped G2’s

OCZ Vertex 60
www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleI...
Positive
+ Very high reading/writing speeds match the drive's nominal specs
+ 3 years of warranty
+ 64MB Cache buffer permanently solves 'stuttering' problem
+ Supports TRIM command with wiper.exe
+ Upgrading the firmware to the latest revision doesn't erase data
+ OCZ offers very active forums and constant support with new firmware releases
+ Price is below $200

Patriot Torqx 128 (Didn’t see one for the 64 Gig)
www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleI...
Nearly identical to vortex line.
Seems a little faster than Vortex.
10 Year warrenty

Refer 640 WD blacks in raid 0. I have a pair that are “short stroked” for OS and programs. They are nice, But performance wise, a “Good” SSD should trounce it., But then the WD’s have the “Size” advantage – big time.
August 12, 2009 7:27:18 PM

Well yea but I am looking at price to performance.... You gotta have a deep wallet and be very impatient to buy an SSD, unless you absolutely need it for whatever reason... Thats my point.... I have used several SSD's and still dont see the point in spending mad cash to shave off a couple of seconds and lose a lot more space.....

Another point that is very interesting is the fact that SSD's are kinda like thumb-drives in a way..... When the thumb-drives came out for the first time they were super expensive, not because of costs of making one but because they were new and very convinient... The 8GB model was like almost 80.00$ and now you can get one off e-bay for less that 5.00$.... The SSD's are nothing but a big memory chip as opposed to the traditional hardrive that has many parts... The cost to make an SSD is alot cheaper than a traditional drive... So whats up with the prices? Just cause its faster does not mean it should cost more money, specially when the cost to make them is dirt cheap......Its just like everything else... In a year or 2 they will come down in price and peeps will be saying, "remember when the SSD was 500.00$$? " ...that is my point.....
a b G Storage
August 12, 2009 7:30:26 PM

Quote:
Not even close to being the same speed. They might read the same but the SSD will have an access time of 0.2 and the black's will be around what 10.0? BIG difference
Woohooo, finally someone who seems to grasp the concept of latency vs bandwidth!!!!

Want to know what latency can do to a drive's performance??? Let's compare the X25-M to the Velociraptor. Velociraptor sequential read ~118MB/s, sequential write ~119MB/s and random write ~1.6MB/s. X25-M sequential read ~230MB/s, sequential write ~70MB/s and random write ~23MB/s.

You can put a shitload of Velociraptor in RAID0, but until you put 14-15 of them, you will still not reach the 23MB of the X25-M.

I'm not saying the Vertex is not good, it's probably very competitive for the price, but you can't compensate all shortcomings with RAID0.
a c 351 G Storage
August 12, 2009 8:08:55 PM

OvrClkr
Yes price/preformance is valid - should have put it that way orginally.
In reference to current cost - The cost of parts and assembly is an invalid assumption. HDDs went thru the same cost reductions verses time. least we forget the expensive MFM and RLL HDDs. The current cost reflects the development cost which is by far larger the production cost. And Yes after the companies recoup thoes cost the prices will drop.

In my case - the SSD is for a laptop (will not use for desktop untill they come down in price and improve the firmware). here it is not just a performance issue, but also a power consumption issue in terms of battery life. Besides, I do not need a 500 gig HDD in my laptop - No gaming. I will have a esata HDD for offloading any large video files (Plugged into AC) and I have a 32 Gig thumb drive for data files. Can also stick a couple of DVD's on the thumb drive to watch on airplane.

PS Although I'm normally very cost wary - Hell I've got the Money. Might as well enjoy it.
August 12, 2009 8:23:14 PM

Yea I agree to an extent... But the SSD's are waaaayyy overpriced ATM.... They coulda gone for double what a normal HD costs but not 5-6 times that amount, that is my argument, specially with the economy its just like a thread I started a month ago that had to do with Intels EE chips....Why sell a chip for a grand in this economy when a 279.99$ chip can be overclocked to the same speed??? Intel has it's line of enthuisiast's that will pay the premium,, dont get me wrong here... But if that same EE chip was 500.00$ less Intel would have doubled thier profits in NO-TIME....Its all about the cash, not about who can sell a chip for a grand and see how many they can lure in to buy it.... It's marketing, something that many companies use and something that Intel needs help on......
August 12, 2009 8:47:58 PM

Psycho I can tell you are an Intel Superfanboy, it is what it is....I am talking stock speeds, who care how high a 975 can go? The i7 lineup is not known for being superb overclockers anyways......All I am saying is that if you buy a 975 EE it will be due to the fact that either 1) You are a supa-noob that does not have a clue to what overclocking means or 2) You are stupid rich and could care less how much a CPU costs in the first place....

Btw in real-world apps you do not see any speed difference after 4.5Ghz.... So why bother unless you are benching?
August 12, 2009 9:32:10 PM

You are not understanding what I am trying to portray here.....

I am saying why spend cash on a 1000.00$ CPU when you can achieve the same speed with a 279.99$ CPU?

CAPICHE?

Then you stated ummm...... " The 975 EE can do 5Ghz. A 920 Cannot and to my knowledge has never gotten past 4.4Ghz. " <--has NOTHING to do with the question........(comparing the 920 @ 3.3Ghz stock 975 speed)

And BTW FYI not EVERYONE overclocks their i7's ...... I know more than 8 programmers that have 920's and 950's and see no need for overclocking since they don't bench nor play any games....
a b G Storage
August 12, 2009 10:03:34 PM

His point is that your statement was wrong. You cannot achieve the same speed with a 920 that you can with a 975. As for the i7 not known for overclocking? The 920 is practically expected to go to 4GHz. That's a 50% overclock that people consider common. If that isn't considered superb overclocking, I don't know what is. The Q6600 was considered a great overclocker, and it didn't routinely get anything farther than 150% (3.6GHz), and the AMD Phenom IIs are considered pretty good too, even though the 955 can't even get to 150% (4.8GHz).
August 12, 2009 11:11:32 PM

cjl you are wrong also, I am not here to flame the i7's as i used to own one.....

As far as the overclocking goes the i7 920 can reach 4.5Ghz easy (D0)...

Second, the reason I posted that the i7's are not great overclockers in the first place is due to the fact that a much cheaper 940Be has pushed 6.5Ghz on heli and nitro and the i7 920 cannot achieve such overclock...

Third the 955be pushed 7.1Ghz on heli and nitro as well.......

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AMD-Phenom-II-Overcloc...
a b G Storage
August 12, 2009 11:43:32 PM

OvrClkr said:
[...]and 4Ghz is not a 50% increase, 4.6Ghz would be a 50% increase...
Mmmm, last time I checked, 2.66 * 1.5 = 3.99 so yes 4GHz would be 50% increase.

As for why some stuff is way overpriced compared to other, my answer is simple: because it can. Build it and they will come.
August 12, 2009 11:49:53 PM

Well my bad for the stupid calculation, all im trying to say is that Intel has wack prices for their top end-chips.... that's all....I apologize for the hijack.... my bad......

a c 351 G Storage
August 12, 2009 11:59:19 PM

Computernewbie
Please ignore sideline CPU discussion.
Ref 30 Gig OCZ. I think for a desktop SSD it's on the small size and 2 of them for a raid0 is expensive (150 x2 = 300). For 300 + a little extra you can get a 120/128 Gig.

Also verify what controller it uses (Stay away from jmicron) and if it supports the Trim cmd. For OCZ look for "garbage collector".

Note: 60 Gig OCZ is 60 gigs (ie 64 - 4 = 60 formatted size). others use unformatted size. ie 80 gig Intel = 74 gig formated size. (only usfull info if looking at cost/gigs).

Myself still undecided between 80 gig Intel (for performance), or 120/128 gig (increased size).

Added: As the salespearson told the custumer looking at a diamond - If you have to ask the price, you probably can not afford it. PS diamond = XXXX and Ruby = XXX.
a b G Storage
August 13, 2009 12:02:58 AM

Bah, no harm done, but yes I understand how you feel when you see how much Intel overcharge simply for the unlocking of the multiplier in the Extreme line. When the Q9650 was release, I think it was priced at 400-500$, but the QX9650 was still at 1000$ and here we are really looking at identical CPU, the only difference is the multiplier locking ...
August 13, 2009 12:12:33 AM



Zenthar said:
Bah, no harm done, but yes I understand how you feel when you see how much Intel overcharge simply for the unlocking of the multiplier in the Extreme line. When the Q9650 was release, I think it was priced at 400-500$, but the QX9650 was still at 1000$ and here we are really looking at identical CPU, the only difference is the multiplier locking ...


That's exactly how I feel, again no flame towards you guys nor Intel. I know you guys spent good coin on those CPU's and you expect them to perform to your standards....its just me, i have compared many chips to the 920 and still don't understand why Intel would charge almost double the cost of a 920 for just a couple hundred MHZ (950)... you do the math...makes no sense.... :pfff: 

Back to the SSD's and i promise this time I won't say squat......
August 13, 2009 12:15:11 AM

Hi,
I have 2 64gb Samsung SSD's in RAID 0 and I love them. Much faster boot up times (reduced by about 60-75% I reckon, don't have exact figures sorry) and loading of games and apps etc.

They were £91 pounds each. Although not a massive amount of storage, they are worth it in my opinion.
Mine are the model down from this one:
http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/64GB-Samsung-25-SATA-II-...
I can't find a place that sells my drives to link to at the moment sorry.

Cheers
AC
August 13, 2009 12:18:47 AM

Im looking at lower gigabyte memory for the SSD's because i only plan on having my OS and some games on it, i'd keep all other information, pictures, music, videos and such on a HD
a c 351 G Storage
August 13, 2009 3:23:51 AM

Which operating system. My vista drive w/programs is 37 gigs and my Win 7 is 17 gigs, but that is without most of my programs. I'm waiting for my win 7 upgrade before installing my programs on win 7. Generally I like to keep a min of 20 % of a drive free which means for a 30 gig drive about 24 gigs for OP/programs/games. Alittle on the tight side.
a b G Storage
August 13, 2009 8:52:12 AM

OvrClkr said:
Well my bad for the stupid calculation, all im trying to say is that Intel has wack prices for their top end-chips.... that's all....I apologize for the hijack.... my bad......

The price is a little crazy, yes, but they really do clock better. The C0 920s would usually crap out at around 3.8GHz (with some good chips making it to 4+), while nearly every 965 would get to 4-4.2 at least (on air). The D0 920s are better, making it to around 4-4.2 on average, but the 975s make it to 4.5GHz or more in many cases. Now, admittedly, that's not much of a speed bump for the price, but they are not identical. Whether the gain is worth it to you is a whole different matter though - and despite being the owner of an i7 EE, I can definitely see some people's point when they say that it just isn't worth the extra money for the 300-400MHz of additional overclock that you will get (on average - there are obviously some chips that clock far better than expected, and some that clock worse).
a b G Storage
August 13, 2009 9:35:34 AM

Quote:
You actually think people buy the 920, 940 and the 975 for stock speeds?

I run my 920 at stock an undervolted. :kaola: 

@OvrClkr: RAID 0 always ends up with half the combined formatted capacity of the drives. Two 640GB drives (formatted to 596GB) would end up as a single 596GB volume in Windows.
a b G Storage
August 13, 2009 9:38:19 AM

I think you meant RAID-1, which is drive mirroring...
a b G Storage
August 13, 2009 9:41:25 AM

Oh yes, my bad. I've had to wake up at 5:30am two days in a row (several hours earlier than usual) so my brain is currently running in hibernation.
August 13, 2009 1:12:55 PM

OvrClkr said:
That's exactly how I feel, again no flame towards you guys nor Intel. I know you guys spent good coin on those CPU's and you expect them to perform to your standards....its just me, i have compared many chips to the 920 and still don't understand why Intel would charge almost double the cost of a 920 for just a couple hundred MHZ (950)... you do the math...makes no sense.... :pfff: 

Back to the SSD's and i promise this time I won't say squat......


The reason Intel does charge almost double the cost of a 920 for just a couple hundred MHZ is...because they can.
Intel has very seasoned market research people. They assess what the demand will be for each pricing point and assess what pricing scheme will maximize their profit. They have obviously concluded that they make the most by the pricing scheme they're using.

Some consumers will always buy the top-of-the-line product independent of its value. Corporate purchasers, for example, often want the 'best' computer for some portion of their staff. So charging those folks, say, $500 instead of $999 is leaving $499 of potential profit on the table for each of those purchasers, and would only be worth the decrease if you see a massive upswing in overall sales.

The fact would remain that there isn't much of a difference between the i7-920 and the i7-950 that would justify paying an extra $220, so most potential i7-920 purchasers wouldn't be persuaded to make the switch even if the price of the i7-950 were cut in half. So Intel is probably right to keep their top-of-the-line chip at around a grand.
a b G Storage
August 13, 2009 1:35:39 PM

In some way, we could be thanking people willing to pay that much because it helps the i7 line stay profitable on the short term and maybe it even allows Intel to give better prices on the other models.
!