Help with choosing boot ssd

get the bigger ssd --128gb for 75 euros

though you can get os on 60gb drive a 128gb would be better

http://www.arvutikeskus.ee/est/TOOTEKATALOOG/ARVUTIKOMP...

sure but it says it's write and read speeds are 175/230 while some 60gb ones are near 500. How come the differences are that big anyways?

i bet they are different stats just to lure people like me into bigger numbers

500mbs read and write would be 6gbs ones

do you have a 6gbs motherboard?

benchmarks are one thing but even a slower ssd is still very quick in real life use

Yea, I do (asrock z77 extreme4-m)

Thanks a lot

The read and write speeds matter much less than the IOPS and random read/write performance.

Typically, all SSDs are fast enough the speed difference between them should not be the biggest concern. A slow SSD is still blazing fast compared to an HDD, a fast SSD is slightly more blazinger. I upgraded my PC from a Vertex2 to a Vertex3 and I saw no difference (the Vertex2 is in another PC, and I've compared the two side by side, the difference is insignificant)

Size and reliability are more important than the speed. Unfortunately alot of those drives are older, and I'm not quite sure which is best for reliability. Samsung 830 and Crucial M4 are two most recommended, but may not be in your price range.

if i plan to avoid overwriting this SSD alot and just keep it for system files then reliability shouldn't be too much of a concern or what? Atleast that's what my limited understanding of ssd tells me

No, that isn't really true. Nand flash wearing down due to writes is a red herring, while the nand is limited to the number of write cycles it can go through, the number of write cycles is huge, and wear leveling and over-provisioning make it extremely difficult to wear out the nand due to excessive writes.

More often than not, mysterious controller issues kill SSDs, generic failures where the drive stops showing up in BIOS, or randomly disappears while in use. These can crop up no matter how you use the SSD, just like an HDD can fail even if you don't crash the heads.

And would you say that spending another ~20 euros is worth it, considering how much more reliable ssd i would get?

Just installed a Vertex 3 60GB in i7 laptop as boot drive alongside Seagate 500GB 7200rpm HDD. I moved tmp, user folders, SoftwareDistribution folder (Windows Update) using junctions to move the biggest hogs off on to the hdd and it still have 25gb free even after installing Office 2007 and again used a junction to move th ehidden MSOcache folder (650MB+) off to the hdd. System is flying.

Forget about speeds. They're all inflated anyway. SSDs are faster but that's not the reason to invest in one. They are vastly more reliable. No moving parts. Read some reviews and you won't buy OCZ. Very checkered past. Crucial M4 or Samsung 830/840. BTW, 60GB is too small.

I would go with a Samusng 840 Pro (super fast) or a Crucial M4 (slower on writes). Both companies have great track records for their SSDs.

In my opinion, the 840 needs to be cheaper than the 830 to be compelling. The 840's have a smaller NAND process and triple layer cells (instead of dual), these things reduce the cost of the NAND at the expense of data integrity (and in a broader sense, reliability). The drives may be fine, but I see no reason to get an 840 when it's priced near the 830; and since the drive is relatively new, it carries risk.

Just my .02$

Thanks a lot! Going with crucial M4 most likely