Over the past year, we've seen the cost per gigabyte of solid-state storage drop in a major way. Once upon a time, we shopped for affordable 60 and 80 GB drives. Now we really want 256 GB drives in our desktops. Meet the last 10 models to land in our lab.
When Thomas, Don, and Paul prioritize the parts for their quarterly System Builder Marathon configurations (the next of which is coming soon, by the way), they pick the components most likely to bolster the performance of their machines in a benchmark. Graphics cards get lots of attention, as do CPUs. Now, I don't want to speak out on behalf of our chosen three, but it appears as though storage is the third-highest consideration nowadays, ahead of memory or motherboards. Specifically, our guys try, where possible, to get at least a small SSD in their builds alongside a larger conventional disk.
Building a tiered storage subsystem is something we've been advocating for a while now. Realistically, you're not going to buy enough flash-based storage to replace magnetic media. And you don't want to load up on disks at the expense of performance, right? So, mix 'em up. The video below should be justification enough.
Now, it used to be that we'd pick up 40 and 60 GB SSDs, paying $100 or so for them, just to get some sort of solid-state storage into our desktops. Those things barely had enough room for Windows 7 and a couple of apps, though. Today, you can almost get 128 GB for the same price. And while we like the idea of triple-digit capacity, even 128 GB feels cramped pretty quickly. So, with the cost per gigabyte of SSD-based storage down huge from last year, 240/256 GB is where we're pinning our ambitions for mid-range machines in 2013.
We keep up with the launches of new storage products, particularly when they involve the introduction of fresh controller technology, a NAND process shrink, or even a significant firmware update. But, even after we do our round-ups, drives continue surfacing.

As a result, today we have 10 SSDs in the 240 to 256 GB range. Some are based on familiar technology (mainly, SandForce's second-gen controller), while others employ controllers we've never tested before (Corsair's Neutron family). In the middle, we have a handful of drives based on common hardware, but set up in a new way (SandForce-based drives with no over-provisioning).
Can we promise you shocking test results that completely turn your world upside-down? No. When it comes to performance, the best of the best is pretty darned close to second-best these days. But we are seeing price tags on some of these SSDs that really impress us. Five of the 10 models we're looking at sell for less than $200. And all but one of them go for less than $1 per gigabyte. Do you think you might be able to fit a nice big SSD into your budget for 2013? If prices continue on the trajectory they're on, we don't see why not!
- 10 SSDs Between 240 And 256 GB
- Adata XPG SX900 And Premiere Pro SP900
- Corsair Neutron GTX And Neutron
- Monster Daytona
- PNY XLR8 Pro And XLR8
- SanDisk Extreme
- Transcend SSD720 And SSD320
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- PCMark 7 And Power Consumption
- Real-World Write Testing
- Should You Care About Over-Provisioning On A SandForce-Based SSD?
- 10 New SSDs: What Does It Take To Turn Heads?
"In order to install a new firmware that significantly boost performance and stability, you must backup all of your data because it will be wiped."
At least with my 64GB of RAM and actually get 64GB of RAM unlike HDs and SSDs.
to see the difference you will need to put the system itself on RAM Disk. not only the installed programs.
Wait, SBMs are fine, but where oh where went BestConfigs?
For a Desktop, I don't have a particular use TBH. I have a RAID0 with 2x512GB WD's and it works amazingly good (and fast as well). I'd say, for desktops, SSDs are still not viable because of price, unless you clench your teeth with loading times or such, hahaha.
Cheers!
I have a 2 year old SSD and my 2x faster SSD for 95% of the time is negligibly shower for my everyday use. It's all about 4K random R/W for your OS and most apps.
Ideally, the 'best' arrangement is SSD's for your boot drive and HDD's for storage; it's seamless once you change your default locations (Documents, Music, etc).
That is some bullshit >:c
What, they pay shipping on golden vessels? Jeez
I feel you bro. For me the shipping is about 2 times the product price, sadly I have found good reasons for high prices in my country, a government not allowing the entrance of merchandise to the country and bottlenecking the market just to a few in existence products.
My next upgrade will be a SSD, but just a 128GB one.... Just for all that hassle.
Good Review BTW
Exactly.
I haven't done the RAM drive thing because one that will truly benefit you requires the OS to be loaded on to it every time you start your computer, and I prefer to shut mine down when it's not in use (like, when I'm sleeping
You're quite right with this ... however, there are limits to that: I've had a crucial v4 drive that slowed down my PC to speeds worse than what I had with my old mechanical 7200rpm drive (sequential read was speedy, but all the rest was crap and PC was continuously freezing for a couple of seconds).
It was cheap for a SSD, but still 3x the price of a 5 times bigger mechanical drive that works faster. The replacement v4 SSD was not working any better: it was not a defective drive, it's just that its crappy low-cost controller didn't like my motherboard. The good thing: Crucial's support was very responsive, quickly aknowledged the problem and offered me a refund. Their M4 256Gb model that was only 20% more expensive works now like a charm in the same PC and Windows flies like never before.