Best SSDs For The Money: May 2011

Best SSDs: $110 And Under

Best SSD for ~$50: Boot Drive

Kingston SSDNow S100
16 GB
Sequential Read
230 MB/s
Sequential Write75 MB/s
Power Consumption (Active)
2.26 W
Power Consumption (Idle)1.08 W

Kingston's SSDNow S100 series is really intended for industrial use, and we're told that you'll find these drives in toll booths, Redbox machines, and ATMs. While this is not a performance-oriented SSD, it is a decent choice that can breathe new life into your current system. Most of us tend to write less data than we read. If you want a quick way to speed up your home rig, a budget SSD is all you need because this cheap SSD's read speed is still faster than a hard drive.

However, you are forced to adopt a dual-drive configuration. With only 16 GB, you can only use this SSD as a Windows 7 32-bit boot drive (64-bit requires 20 GB). All of your programs and personal files need to be installed on a secondary hard drive.

Best SSD for ~$75: Boot Drive

Corsair Nova Series V32
32 GB
Sequential Read
195 MB/s
Sequential Write70 MB/s
Power Consumption (Active)
2.0 W
Power Consumption (Idle)0.5 W

Corsair's Nova series is based on the Indilinx Barefoot controller. That doesn't make it a bad SSD family, but you should have realistic expectations of what Indilinx's controller can do. You'll still achieve better performance than a hard drive, but this drive falls into the lower half of the SSD performance hierarchy.

Note that the Nova series comes in three capacities: 32, 64, and 128 GB. The 32 GB model uses only half of the available NAND channels, which is why performance isn't as high as the 128 GB model. However, if you want a bit more capacity than 16 GB, this is a good choice. It's also a cheaper alternative to OCZ's 30 GB Vertex, which happens to use the same controller.

Best SSD for ~$100: Boot Drive

Intel SSD 320
40 GB
Sequential Read
200 MB/s
Sequential Write45 MB/s
Power Consumption (Active)
0.15 W
Power Consumption (Idle)0.10 W

At ~$100, your choice is limited to A-Data's 40 GB S599, OCZ's 40 GB Agility 2, and Intel's 40 GB SSD 320. We're recommending the SSD 320, because it has proven itself a worthy successor to the X25-M (G2). These drives are priced in excess of $2/GB, but that's to be expected for SSDs in the $100 price range.

Remember that drives with less capacity often use fewer than the total available NAND channels, so performance is slower than the larger models in the same product families, which most often get reviewed.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
50 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
  • James296
    funny, I was just looking for a $100-$150 SSD not more then 5 mins ago.
    0
  • JohnnyLucky
    The best ssd for $100.00 category is a bit off. I just got the Kingston SSDNow V100+ 96GB SATA II ssd at newegg for $99.99 after mail-in rebate.That's just a hair over $1.00/GB.
    0
  • JohnnyLucky
    Looks like the best ssd for $180.00 single drive configuration is off too. You must be using MRSP instead of street or sale prices for the Kingston SSDNow V+ 100 96GB SATA II ssd.
    0
  • acku
    JohnnyLuckyLooks like the best ssd for $180.00 single drive configuration is off too. You must be using MRSP instead of street or sale prices for the Kingston SSDNow V+ 100 96GB SATA II ssd.


    We don't include mail-in rebates. Sale prices are included.
    2
  • ZeroLag
    I'm actually disappointed in the lack of effort in this article. Even as a new system builder, my 2 month research into SSD performance easily allows me the knowledge of measuring SSD true performance.

    You measure it in 4kb random read/write and 4k sequential read/write. Window 7 is natively read in these sectors. If you compare these SSDs to 4k performance/"current" market price, then you're actually giving us consumers a viable way to compare SSDs. This article just seems to list prices of SSDs without a mention of performance. Also, Max Write and Max Read are not ways to measure SSDs. Rarely do these SSDs function at that capacity.

    I love Tom's Hardware. Let's keep the standards high.

    This article = Epic Fail
    9
  • Anonymous
    I'd say any of the 60-64 GB SSDs with the Sandforce 1200 series controllers are the hot items for boot drives. They can almost always be had for around $100 with a mail in rebate, and sometimes for less. These are actually more than large enough for almost anyone's boot drive and have loads of room left for all of your personal data-with some of your games to boot!

    Patriot, OCX, Vertex and a host of others meet these criteria.
    -1
  • nitrium
    The most important metric for day to day usage is the 4kb read/write performance at queue depth 1 (QD 1). Windows 7 averages QD 1.04 when booting/loading games and apps etc. It only rarely goes above a QD of 1, and VERY rarely above QD 5. Surprise, surprise, the performance of almost every SSD at QD 1 is near enough the same (in fact some 1st gen drives outperform "higher spec" 3rd gen drives at QD 1!!!). There is not much (if any) performance to be gained for typical users getting high-end SSDs. For the vast majority of users, the best advice is to get the cheapest per GB drive you can get. Ignore synthetic benchmarks (or at least focus only on QD 1 performance).
    1
  • Olle P
    The 16GB Kingston SSDNow S100 should be great for use with Intel SRT.
    0
  • twile
    Friendly suggestion to Tom's. Instead of going through and listing off the suggested drive for each dollar range, make a chart instead. Don't just tell us the recommended drive for each range, go through the different primary criteria--capacity, performance, and reliability at the least--and let users figure out what's most important to them. For example, I don't care much about reliability because my data isn't mission-critical and I have it backed up nightly, so if a drive dies then I just do an Advance RMA and use another system for a few days.
    0
  • ProDigit10
    All these superspeeds and super iops are nice, but I wonder when they will start manufacturing affordable SSD's with a good capacity?

    I'm thinking in the line of sub $100, for 64GB. If they could only trade off some of the speed, to get the cost down!
    Just as long as it uses less power than a harddrive, and has higher iops (which would result in faster program and OS boot times), I'd be happy!
    0
  • Onus
    I've had a couple of SSDs fail, the second after only two months of office-type use, so I'd like to see more information on reliability as it becomes available.
    1
  • schwizer
    Quote:
    jtt283 05/31/2011 2:32 PM
    I've had a couple of SSDs fail, the second after only two months of office-type use, so I'd like to see more information on reliability as it becomes available.


    Were they OCZ Vertex 2 drives?
    0
  • Anonymous
    Had one ocz drive fail, and 3 crucial c300 drives fail. so far owned 6 intel ssd's and 0 failures.
    0
  • Onus
    No, they were not OCZ. The first was a two-year old Crucial, and the second was a two-month old AData. The deaths were "different," in that it was easy to get the data off the Crucial, but not the AData. I finally managed to get most of it off, but the AData flash utility can't even see the drive, and it drops out in Windows after a limited number of operations too.
    0
  • Kisakuku
    Quote:
    However, OCZ recently made a play to lock in its I/O performance leadership with a Max IOPS edition of the Vertex 3. The only difference between this drive and the regular Vertex 3 is its firmware.


    Vertex 3 and Vertex 3 Max IOPS have identical firmware. It's the NAND (25nm Micron MLC NAND in Vertex 3, 32nm Toshiba Toggle Mode MLC NAND in Vertex 3 Max IOPS) that differentiates the two.
    0
  • hdawood
    At $240, I think the newly released Corsair Force 3 http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233181 is a better option, with Read 550 MB/s , Write 510 MB/s and 85,000 4k random IOPS. Also, it's SATA 6Gbps
    0
  • sanityvoid
    ZeroLagI'm actually disappointed in the lack of effort in this article. Even as a new system builder, my 2 month research into SSD performance easily allows me the knowledge of measuring SSD true performance. You measure it in 4kb random read/write and 4k sequential read/write. Window 7 is natively read in these sectors. If you compare these SSDs to 4k performance/"current" market price, then you're actually giving us consumers a viable way to compare SSDs. This article just seems to list prices of SSDs without a mention of performance. Also, Max Write and Max Read are not ways to measure SSDs. Rarely do these SSDs function at that capacity. I love Tom's Hardware. Let's keep the standards high. This article = Epic Fail


    I agree with this comment. Reading Anandtech.com and you will find the random read/write, mentioned above, is much more important than the metric you have provided in the article.

    Please incorporate random read/write into the next month's article.

    Buying the cheapest GB/$ is not the way to go. Reliability and other metrics must factor in.
    0
  • dgingeri
    I went with 2X Vertex 2 120GB drives in RAID 0 for my SSD setup. It works beautifully. ~400MB/s transfer rates where there is data even after 6 months of use. (The unused portions of the drives show 535MB/s, but that's kind of a trick of the Sandforce controller because it is transferring nothing but 0's.) Since these drives are going for $200 each, that's a better performing setup, with the same capacity, than a single 240GB Agility 3.
    3