Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Best SSDs For The Money: August 2012 (Archive)

Tags:
  • SSD
  • Product
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
August 28, 2012 3:46:09 AM

Are you still holding off on an SSD upgrade? You may not need to. Vendors are cutting their prices yet again. If you're on a budget, drives under $200 sure are tempting. This may be a temporary phenomenon, though; retailers are in "back to school" mode.

Best SSDs For The Money: August 2012 : Read more

More about : ssds money august 2012 archive

Anonymous
October 23, 2012 4:15:19 PM

there was as typo with the Vertex 4, there is no 120GB, it's 128GB
Score
0
October 24, 2012 6:51:11 AM

Mushkin Enhanced Chronos has an awful lot one-star reviews on Newegg.

Just sayin'...
Score
19
Related resources
October 24, 2012 7:10:37 AM

Seriously? No mention of the Samsung 830 at ALL? The 128GB model is only $90 on Amazon/Newegg!
Score
27
October 24, 2012 8:55:57 AM

what about bootable pci-e ssd ??? regadless of the Enterprise designation often give, they are price competative with these and we are talking PERFORMANCE...
Score
0
October 24, 2012 11:17:33 AM

Reliability is my primary concern, so my quick and dirty rule for SSDs is "No Sandfarce, and no OCZ."
I use a Crucial m4 mSATA (238GB formatted) as my system drive in my primary rig, and it is certainly fast enough, even though the mSATA slot is "only" 3Gb/s.
My other rig uses a 256GB Samsung 830 on a 6Gb/s port. I can not tell any performance difference based on the drive; the two rigs are too different to compare them directly.
Score
-1
October 24, 2012 12:23:04 PM

I've never had a problem with my Vertex 4. Read/write are both around the 500 mark and everything loads instantly.
Score
14
October 24, 2012 12:44:35 PM

jtt283Reliability is my primary concern, so my quick and dirty rule for SSDs is "No Sandfarce, and no OCZ."I use a Crucial m4 mSATA (238GB formatted) as my system drive in my primary rig, and it is certainly fast enough, even though the mSATA slot is "only" 3Gb/s.My other rig uses a 256GB Samsung 830 on a 6Gb/s port. I can not tell any performance difference based on the drive; the two rigs are too different to compare them directly.


OCZ Vertex/Agility 4 is just as reliable as Crucial M4 with current firmware, so a no OCZ rule doesn't seem fair. Going by individual line rather than company is a better way of going about this.
Score
25
October 24, 2012 12:49:12 PM

AnonymousI don't see why OCZ gets recommended at ANY price point...Since when is unreliability a benefit?


I run 2 x 256 GB of Vertex 4 and they've ran flawlessly for about 3 months now. I guess it's easy to regurgetate what you read from outdated articles referencing the original firmware.
Score
14
October 24, 2012 1:05:05 PM

yeah how come no mention of Samsung SSD drives?
Score
-16
October 24, 2012 1:21:41 PM

spookymanyeah how come no mention of Samsung SSD drives?


The first page has a bug picture of a Samsung SSD along with a four paragraph *essay* mostly about the drive in the picture. There are several references to Samsung SSDs in this article.
Score
13
October 24, 2012 1:30:06 PM

It is true that the OCZ "4" series drives aren't Sandfarce, however I don't care to be an unpaid beta tester for their firmware. OCZ has lost my trust. There's competent competition (e.g. Samsung) with no such issues, so there's no reason to choose OCZ.
Score
0
October 24, 2012 1:43:22 PM

jtt283It is true that the OCZ "4" series drives aren't Sandfarce, however I don't care to be an unpaid beta tester for their firmware. OCZ has lost my trust. There's competent competition (e.g. Samsung) with no such issues, so there's no reason to choose OCZ.


Generally better pricing and at least compared to the Samsung 830, better performance. There's plenty of reason to go with OCZ. Furthermore, how OCZ did the launch isn't really bad. They could release it as it was at the time and improve it along the way, or simply wait until they've already improved it (which would probably take longer and probably also mean higher launch prices).

At that point, you're not an unpaid beta tester because you got the drive cheaper than you would have if OCZ had to wait months to a year or more before getting it *ready*. Besides, it's not like Vertex 4 wasn't a good drive for the money even when it launched and the support that OCZ has offered to Vertex 4 owners is superb, to say the least.

Furthermore, Samsung has had firmware issues. No SSD company has been truly free of them.
Score
3
October 24, 2012 2:12:10 PM

In actual use, the performance difference between a couple of Marvell drives, or even a Marvell and a Sandfarce, will be virtually invisible. I'll happily pay a few dollars more for a drive I can plug in and use, vs. one I have to plug in and update first. Updates should be optional (even if they provide a visible improvement), not required to get the drive to work properly at all. OCZ's latest drives may be fine, but like I said OCZ has lost my trust. I simply find no compelling reason (a few dollars isn't it) to take the risk. As far as whether or not that's "fair," I'm sure they weighed the risks of releasing unfinished / untested products, and decided it was a risk they could take; at least in my case it looks like they guessed wrong.
Score
6
October 24, 2012 2:28:50 PM

I would love it if you guys would include a chart, like your transfer speed chart, that also factors Price and Capacity in the ranking.

I took the first price from Amazon to build this and weighted the Capacity and Speed equally, normalized to Price (enhanced GB/$)... Not sure that's the most realistic, but you get the idea, and it helps identify good value/capacity/speed compromise points.

Thanks,

Ben

Sorry, the formatting on this sucks
  1. Capacity Speed Price (C+S)/P
  2. M3Pro 128 214 115 3.0
  3. 830 64 142 70 2.9
  4. V3 120 149 100 2.7
  5. Agility3 120 114 90 2.6
  6. M3 128 182 120 2.6
  7. V3IOPS 120 179 120 2.5
  8. 830 256 201 185 2.5
  9. SSD330 120 127 100 2.5
  10. Agility4 128 104 95 2.4
  11. V4 256 191 195 2.3
  12. V3 240 194 190 2.3
  13. Agility4 256 130 170 2.3
  14. M4 256 168 188 2.3
  15. SSD330 180 141 150 2.1
  16. Agility3 180 122 150 2.0
  17. SSD520 240 183 235 1.8
  18. Perf.Pro 128 171 190 1.6
  19. SSD320 300 121 450 0.9
  20. 470 256 124 500 0.8
Score
13
October 24, 2012 3:00:36 PM

jtt283In actual use, the performance difference between a couple of Marvell drives, or even a Marvell and a Sandfarce, will be virtually invisible. I'll happily pay a few dollars more for a drive I can plug in and use, vs. one I have to plug in and update first. Updates should be optional (even if they provide a visible improvement), not required to get the drive to work properly at all. OCZ's latest drives may be fine, but like I said OCZ has lost my trust. I simply find no compelling reason (a few dollars isn't it) to take the risk. As far as whether or not that's "fair," I'm sure they weighed the risks of releasing unfinished / untested products, and decided it was a risk they could take; at least in my case it looks like they guessed wrong.


There can be significant performance differences between different Marvell-based SSDs, especially where the M4 is concerned because it's simply not that fast compared to some of these other drives and of the current Marvell drives, the Agility 4 is probably the only line that is generally slower than M4. SandForce versus Marvell can have huge performance differences in different scenarios. The firmware updates for Vertex 4 are optional (if you don't want them, then don't get them, the drive isn't not going to work just because you're not on the latest version). There isn't a risk.

OCZ lost your trust because they released products when they were "in beta" rather than "finished? Sorry, but that's ridiculous. OCZ simply gave us the choice of buying them early. There's nothing wrong with that. If you wanted more mature firmware, then whether or not you have the option to buy it before it has firmware that you like doesn't hurt you whatsoever.

It helps you because not only will it take less time to get to that point, not only will you pay less money when the firmware is at that point, but you also get nearly constant news about the progress and thus an understanding of how the drive/firmware is doing at any given time as well as how well customer support and such deal with issues. If anything, I'd trust OCZ more for doing things this way because it better serves intelligent consumers than simply waiting in the dark of what's going on and not knowing what to expect.

Perhaps you'll disagree anyway, but I do not understand your point of view at all if you still disagree.
Score
-3
October 24, 2012 3:49:14 PM

I use: OCZ Vertex 4 as my system/boot drive. under 15 seconds from "Loading Windows" (Win7pro) to a responsive desktop and that includes typing in my password.
Score
5
October 24, 2012 4:26:09 PM

In the preface to your article you write, "we've heard rumors as to why SSDs are so cheap, though, and we're not sure this is sustainable." If I'm not mistaken, you never follow up on that. What's the point of making such a big one-off statement like that if you don't elaborate?
Score
13
October 24, 2012 5:26:52 PM

blazorthon said:
There can be significant performance differences...

OCZ lost your trust because they released products when they were "in beta" rather than "finished?


Performance differences on benchmarks, certainly, and I'm sure on certain types of workloads. In "typical" uses, not really, especially when compared to a mechanical HDD. A double-digit performance difference that amounts to a fraction of a second simply doesn't matter. I do agree that for those certain workloads where it matters, where time is money, a professional will need to focus more on those benchmarks.

OCZ has lost my trust for a pattern of decisions, from PSUs that review well on day 1 but fail early due to substandard caps, to the way they handled the change to 25nm, and more recently the fact that a lot of their [Sandforce] drives had major firmware issues that were bricking drives. What else do they have that might fail, and how? When I can buy a Seasonic, or a Crucial, or a Mushkin, or a Samsung, or ... and be certain it is going to work (given that anyone can have an occasional DOA), I just don't see a need to risk OCZ.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not lumping them with Crappermaster and others guilty of willful dishonesty; OCZ might earn my trust again someday, it's just that they've been relying on their premium name but have stopped delivering premium products.
Score
-2
October 24, 2012 6:07:56 PM

AnonymousI don't see why OCZ gets recommended at ANY price point...Since when is unreliability a benefit?


This is the one thing that gets me. Every site talks about OCZ because of their read/write numbers. I wouldn't buy any of their products. I would pay the premium for intel or crucial reliability. (which i do/have)
Score
4
October 24, 2012 8:03:01 PM

Where's the Corsair Neutron GTX?
Score
4
October 24, 2012 8:24:15 PM

And where are Smasund 840s ?
Score
-6
October 24, 2012 8:28:14 PM

blazorthonKeep in mind that the average Newegg customer, sadly, is not much better than the average computer user. Most of the problems were caused by people not updating the firmware (granted Newegg really should update that for us before shipping the drives IMO). There are a few DOAs, but I wonder how many of them were caused by consumer stupidity and sheer bad luck. Besides, pretty much all products that I've ever known for tech have had some DOAs.It happens to the best too. I'm not saying with absolute certainty that OCZ's drives are extremely reliable (although with the Vertex 4 and probably the Agility 4, they should be given that they don't use OCZ's crappy implementation of the poor SandForce controller that needed Intel to truly make it reliable with their drives), but they are a lot better than many newegg reviews say that they are. Keep in mind that many of these people are the same people who are convinced that an Athlon II x4 is as good as an i5-2500K just because it also has four cores and some of them have similar clock frequencies.


i realize some people on newegg are idiots but after reading OCZ ssd reviews i dont think i could get myself to buy any OCZ ssd. looks like OCZ switched to a Indilinx controller because they knew there was a problem. after putting out that many bad sandforce ssd's its going to take more then 1 gen to prove i can trust you. top of the line performance in a ssd is nice but ultimately i want reliability. ill settle for a ssd thats a little slower over the top performing drive that dies, BSOD or its speed degrades after 1000 hours.
Score
-2
October 24, 2012 8:42:43 PM

baconeaterThis is the one thing that gets me. Every site talks about OCZ because of their read/write numbers. I wouldn't buy any of their products. I would pay the premium for intel or crucial reliability. (which i do/have)


Vertex 4 is just as reliable as Crucial M4.
Score
0
October 24, 2012 8:45:41 PM

jonjonjoni realize some people on newegg are idiots but after reading OCZ ssd reviews i dont think i could get myself to buy any OCZ ssd. looks like OCZ switched to a Indilinx controller because they knew there was a problem. after putting out that many bad sandforce ssd's its going to take more then 1 gen to prove i can trust you. top of the line performance in a ssd is nice but ultimately i want reliability. ill settle for a ssd thats a little slower over the top performing drive that dies, BSOD or its speed degrades after 1000 hours.


Vertex 4 and Agility 4 use a Marvell controller like Crucial M4 does (although not the exact same model IIRC). It was re-branded as Indilinx because OCZ made their own firmware for it with their Indilinx guys, but it is actually a Marvell controller. It is very reliable.
Score
2
October 24, 2012 8:48:00 PM

kalliman said:
And where are Smasund 840s ?


That information is on the first page of the article.
Score
2
October 24, 2012 9:34:34 PM

Onus said:
Performance differences on benchmarks, certainly, and I'm sure on certain types of workloads. In "typical" uses, not really, especially when compared to a mechanical HDD. A double-digit performance difference that amounts to a fraction of a second simply doesn't matter. I do agree that for those certain workloads where it matters, where time is money, a professional will need to focus more on those benchmarks.

OCZ has lost my trust for a pattern of decisions, from PSUs that review well on day 1 but fail early due to substandard caps, to the way they handled the change to 25nm, and more recently the fact that a lot of their [Sandforce] drives had major firmware issues that were bricking drives. What else do they have that might fail, and how? When I can buy a Seasonic, or a Crucial, or a Mushkin, or a Samsung, or ... and be certain it is going to work (given that anyone can have an occasional DOA), I just don't see a need to risk OCZ.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not lumping them with Crappermaster and others guilty of willful dishonesty; OCZ might earn my trust again someday, it's just that they've been relying on their premium name but have stopped delivering premium products.


I'll agree on the PSUs and their older SSD lines, but Vertex 4 is a premium product as far as I'm concerned. My own Vertex 4 128GB has proven to be an excellent purchase and I've noticed how much OCZ had improved their customer support (it's incredible with Vertex 4 unlike with Vertex 3 where OCZ basically wasn't of much more help than Apple is, at least in my experience).

Score
3
October 24, 2012 9:38:03 PM

I only have experience with a samsung 830 which from what i can tell from it caching my HDD makes a significant difference from my other drive without caching. I also have a OCZ vertex 4 as my main boot drive and for other games such as BF3, SC2, WoW. Performance wise I'm usually way ahead of everyone loading, the only thing that slows me down is usually all server side from being able to keep up in such cases like BF3. I enjoy the SSD so much I've recommend it to several of my friends. Been a month now and no issues at all(knock on wood) As prices decrease I'm sure to pick up more drives.
Score
3
October 24, 2012 9:43:45 PM

littleleoI just bought a SanDisk 120GB Extreme 2.5" SSD SATA III Drive, 550 Read/510 Write. I paid $90 with free shipping and no tax. It installed Windows 7 Ultimate super fast and I now turn on my computer and I'm in Windows in 7 seconds, it wold be faster but I have to type my password in.


Something odd has happened to SanDisk models here (UK). In the space of a week, prices shot up and the usual suppliers
suddenly had no stock. I was going to get a 240GB from Scan when it was listed there and elsewhere for 129 UKP, but
now the same model is listed at 153 UKP but not in stock (best price from 'reliable' sources is about 148 UKP total); that's
more than the Vertex3 and the Vertex4. In the end on Monday I bought a Samsung 830 256GB for 130 UKP from ebuyer
with free shipping, which is easily a better buy than the SanDisk. ebuyer started with 250 units available on Monday, more
than a 100 sold in one day. :D  They must have landed some kind of sourcing deal as they now show 504 in stock. Blimey...

Ian.

Score
1
October 24, 2012 9:48:07 PM


I agree with Blazorthon about OCZ SSDs. So many people complained about their purchase, but I expect many didn't bother
updating the fw before use. I have quite a few of them now, no problems so far.

Btw, if you have an older system that lacks SATA3, the 120GB Vertex2E is an excellent choice, only 52 UKP in the UK atm,
eg. Novatech with free shipping. I replaced a normal HDD on an EVGA P55 FTW last week with a V2E/120 and by heck what
a difference! 8)

Meanwhile, Amazon was doing the Vertex3 120GB MAX IOPS for 80 UKP with free shipping, so I bagged a few of those
for SAS RAID testing.

Hunt around! As the article opener says, there are some good deals to be found. Who knows how long it'll last.

Ian.

Score
1
October 24, 2012 11:54:47 PM

I'm hoping for a $50 128GB Vertex 4 on Black Friday. I'll keep my options open and look for a Samsung 840 at maybe $70. Don't really need the latest and greatest right now but try to stay near the leading edge. I may have to "settle" for a Vertex 3 or Samsung 830 (or some other "last" generation model) to hit my price point, but I've seen th Vertex 4 for around $75 so $50 isn't a stretch.
Score
1
October 25, 2012 2:47:47 AM

I bought a vert 3 at compusa 5-6 months ago and it had the most updated firmware available on it out of the box. Haven't had a problem with it at all.
Score
0
October 25, 2012 7:26:38 PM

I'm surprised I don't see SanDisk Extreme 120 listed I bought mine for $90.50 no tax & free shipping. It's faster then the OCZ Vertex 4 SSD, 550/510. I'm on my desktop in less then 15 secs, got to learn how to type my login faster, lol. I see the OCZ VTX3-25SAT3-120G Vertex 3 at Tiger for $69 after MIR and it has better spec then the OCZ Vertex 4 too.
Score
0
October 25, 2012 10:26:37 PM

well i just got a 90 ocz vertz 3 good price at microcenter here in Texas usa now i need a hdd for my games and media i blew my old one out witha bad psu i got refurb anyway the vertez 3 seems real fast and on a side not what can i do about the psu killing my hdd i returned for the ssd in topic
Score
-3
October 25, 2012 10:28:00 PM

the price of the ssd was 59.99 ocz vertwz 3 90gb and its 6.0 the whatever
Score
0
Anonymous
October 25, 2012 11:35:29 PM

Are my $70 Kingston HyperX 3k's (120gig) really that bad in your guys' eyes?
Score
0
October 25, 2012 11:50:21 PM

littleleoI'm surprised I don't see SanDisk Extreme 120 listed I bought mine for $90.50 no tax & free shipping. It's faster then the OCZ Vertex 4 SSD, 550/510. I'm on my desktop in less then 15 secs, got to learn how to type my login faster, lol. I see the OCZ VTX3-25SAT3-120G Vertex 3 at Tiger for $69 after MIR and it has better spec then the OCZ Vertex 4 too.


You're not comparing like with like. Read the detailed reviews of these products, they each have their own strengths
and weaknesses. Comparing the SanDisk with a Vertex4 based on max sequential rates is just silly (you would never
notice such a narrow difference, and real benchmarks often show different variations; it's also not representative of
typical desktop usage).

I have both V3 and V4 units, been using them for a while. The V4 has much better random I/O than the V3 in some cases,
but is best used when it's not going to be filled up too fast in a single write operation.

Let me put it another way, using the manufacturers' own specs. The SanDisk and V4 both have similar 4K random write
IOPS (83000 vs. 85000 respectively), but they are totally different for 4K random read, the V4 is in a different league
(23000 for the SanDisk, 90000 for the V4). The V3 is closer to the SanDisk for 4K random write. So if you're doing
something that involves a lot of small writes (code compilation?), the V4 is going to be much better. Otherwise, they'll
be similar plus or minus (depends on the task).

Ian.

Score
1
October 25, 2012 11:52:44 PM

masmotorswell i just got a 90 ocz vertz 3 good price at microcenter here in Texas usa now i need a hdd for my games and media i blew my old one out witha bad psu i got refurb anyway the vertez 3 seems real fast and on a side not what can i do about the psu killing my hdd i returned for the ssd in topic


Hate to say it but it' s kinda hard to understand what you're trying to say without a proper sentence structure...

Ian.

Score
1
October 26, 2012 12:21:00 AM

Any word on Sandisk Extreme? Kind of sets off alarm bells when I buy products you guys don't mention?
Score
0
October 26, 2012 1:00:27 AM

Sandisk here, 480GB version, no issue, but had to update firmware due to the broken TRIM.

Today the best bang for the buck at > 400GB is the mushkin Deluxe. The non deluxe is the lowest price ever seen for a 480GB (newegg).
Score
0
October 26, 2012 3:47:09 AM

mapesdhsYou're not comparing like with like. Read the detailed reviews of these products, they each have their own strengthsand weaknesses. Comparing the SanDisk with a Vertex4 based on max sequential rates is just silly (you would nevernotice such a narrow difference, and real benchmarks often show different variations; it's also not representative oftypical desktop usage).I have both V3 and V4 units, been using them for a while. The V4 has much better random I/O than the V3 in some cases,but is best used when it's not going to be filled up too fast in a single write operation.Let me put it another way, using the manufacturers' own specs. The SanDisk and V4 both have similar 4K random writeIOPS (83000 vs. 85000 respectively), but they are totally different for 4K random read, the V4 is in a different league(23000 for the SanDisk, 90000 for the V4). The V3 is closer to the SanDisk for 4K random write. So if you're doingsomething that involves a lot of small writes (code compilation?), the V4 is going to be much better. Otherwise, they'llbe similar plus or minus (depends on the task).Ian.


V4 will also take a large lead in data that can't be compressed well if at all, among other workloads.
Score
1
October 26, 2012 2:13:39 PM

blazorthonV4 will also take a large lead in data that can't be compressed well if at all, among other workloads.


Ah yes! I forgot about that. Probably the most imortant difference of all. :D 

Ian.

Score
1
October 26, 2012 3:10:23 PM

mapesdhs said:
Ah yes! I forgot about that. Probably the most imortant difference of all. :D 

Ian.


Even better, for work that can be compressed, you can enable NTFS compression. It's probably not as effective as SandForce's compression, but it'd undoubtedly help with compressible workloads on V4 and other Marvell/Samsung drives whereas it'd probably do nothing for a SandForce drive that already uses compression :) 
Score
0
October 27, 2012 1:08:52 AM

RichoOssavitorAny word on Sandisk Extreme? Kind of sets off alarm bells when I buy products you guys don't mention?
ok sorry for that but its understandable next time ill be slower but its hard to spell right and fast
Score
0
October 28, 2012 2:52:27 PM

samsung 830 all the way. reliable and fast plus you can find many deals at 150 to 180 USD for the 256GB version. i was waiting for a chance to buy a good 256GB to replace my 80GB intel 320. i missed many chances to buy the 256GB 830 at $150. when i found it on sale on amazon for $159 with free shipping i didn't hesitate =)
Score
2
October 28, 2012 7:32:25 PM


The 256GB 830 I ordered should arrive tomorrow; looking forward to seeing how it performs. 8)

Oh, a small datapoint for those with older systems without SATA3 who haven't yet taken the SSD plunge:
yesterday I replaced a typical older 250GB SATA on an Asrock P55 Extreme (3GHz i3 540) with a 60GB
OCZ Vertex2E. With the old HDD, bootup time to login screen was 29s; this was cut to 16s with the OCZ.

HDTach gave min/max/avg/RND/burst for the 250GB HDD as 32, 50.2, 62, 12.2ms and 127 (I/O rates in MB/sec).
For the OCZ this changed to 141.8, 202.3, 252.4, 0.2ms and 268.1. Much snappier system now.

An SSD is clearly a worthwhile upgrade even if one doesn't have the latest SATA3, etc.

Ian.

Score
0
October 28, 2012 7:46:29 PM

mapesdhsThe 256GB 830 I ordered should arrive tomorrow; looking forward to seeing how it performs. 8)Oh, a small datapoint for those with older systems without SATA3 who haven't yet taken the SSD plunge:yesterday I replaced a typical older 250GB SATA on an Asrock P55 Extreme (3GHz i3 540) with a 60GBOCZ Vertex2E. With the old HDD, bootup time to login screen was 29s; this was cut to 16s with the OCZ.HDTach gave min/max/avg/RND/burst for the 250GB HDD as 32, 50.2, 62, 12.2ms and 127 (I/O rates in MB/sec).For the OCZ this changed to 141.8, 202.3, 252.4, 0.2ms and 268.1. Much snappier system now.An SSD is clearly a worthwhile upgrade even if one doesn't have the latest SATA3, etc.Ian.


Having SATA 150 Mb/s, even low end SSD is often still worth the upgrade so long as it works ;) 
Score
-1
October 29, 2012 6:59:16 AM

sunnyday731without samsung 830/840 pro, intel 520 and corsair nutron gtx, this article is a piece of junk. the writer of this article is trying to make fool of the readers. Majority of the readers are not convinced by the wrong judgement and justifications made by the writer in recommending ssd in this article.samsung 830 is at 170$ on newegg these days and it is not recommended in any category.


Intel's 520 series is SAT 300Mb/s, so of course it's not recommended.

Corsair Neutron GTX and Samsung 840 are too new for the article to have had them.

Samsung 840 is specifically talked about at the start of the article because of this.

The Samsung 830 was not $170 when the article was made.

I could go on about your foolishness and lack of credibility for not checking the date of the article, for not realizing that the article had to have been written one or two weeks before publication, and that the article's writers probably can't see into the future to check future prices, but that'd just be rude.
Score
2
Anonymous
October 29, 2012 8:25:13 AM

in what tier OCZ Vertex 4 128?
Score
0
October 29, 2012 12:26:36 PM

Dfirdayin what tier OCZ Vertex 4 128?


Probably in the second tier, but if not, then its in the third tier.
Score
0
    • 1 / 7
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!