Welcome to the second installment of our list of top SSDs at at any given price point. This month we see the announcement of several new drives from OCZ, availability of Crucial's m4 lineup (at expected prices), and the emergence of new SF-2200 options.
Detailed solid state drive specifications and reviews are great—that is, if you have the time to do the research. However, at the end of the day, what an enthusiast needs is the best SSD within a certain budget.
So, if you don’t have the time to research the benchmarks, or if you don’t feel confident enough in your ability to pick the right drive, then fear not. We at Tom’s Hardware have come to your aid with a simple list of the best SSD offered for the money.
May Updates:
| OCZ | Sequential Read | Sequential Write | Random Read | Random Write |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vertex 3 120 GB | 550 MB/s | 500 MB/s | 20 000 IOPS | 60 000 IOPS |
| Vertex 3 Max IOPS 120 GB | 550 MB/s | 500 MB/s | 35 000 IOPS | 75 000 IOPS |
| Vertex 3 240 GB | 550 MB/s | 520 MB/s | 40 000 IOPS | 60 000 IOPS |
| Vertex 3 Max IOPS 240 GB | 550 MB/s | 500 MB/s | 55 000 IOPS | 65 000 IOPS |
In the last two months, we saw the launch of three major performance SSDs: OCZ's Vertex 3, Crucial's m4 (also known as Micron's RealSSD C400), and Intel's SSD 510. Of these, OCZ's Vertex 3 maintains its performance leadership. Other vendors are slowly starting to launch their own second-gen SandForce-based SSDs though, so it remains to be seen if any of them are able to usurp the established champion.
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. The Max IOPS edition is tweaked to deliver better random read/write performance at the cost of sequential write performance (for the 240 GB model).
| OCZ | Market | SATA | Sequential Read | Sequential Write | Random Read | Random Write |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agility 2 120 GB | Mainstream Performance | 3 Gb/s | 285 MB/s | 275 MB/s | ? | 10 000 IOPS |
| Agility 3 120 GB | Mainstream Performance | 6 Gb/s | 550 MB/s | 500 MB/s | 20 000 IOPS | 50 000 IOPS |
| Onyx 128 GB | Value | 3 Gb/s | 150 MB/s | 120 MB/s | ? | ? |
| Solid 3 120 GB | Value | 6 Gb/s | 500 MB/s | 450 MB/s | 20 000 IOPS | 20 000 IOPS |
OCZ also announced its Agility 3 and Solid 3 SSDs, which are are intended to tier SATA 6Gb/s performance for those operating on a limited budget. Let's face it, none of the fastest SF-2200-based drives are going to be cheap. The pricing OCZ originally provided was too ambitious; its 120 GB model sells for $50 more at $299, and its 240 GB version is even more expensive this month than it was last month: $60 higher than originally planned, at $559.
If the sequential performance of the Agility 3 and Solid 3 match up close to OCZ's top-dog, the company will be in a competitive value position. We're still waiting to test those drives though, so we'll hold off on a recommendation until they land in our lab.
In other news, Crucial deserves some praise. Its m4 SSDs do sell for the prices the company told us to expect. Interestingly, that means the m4 sells for the same price as its older RealSSD C300; the 240 and 120 GB are each selling for $499 and $249, respectively. In terms of performance, the m4 is able to content with OCZ's Vertex 3, making Crucial's drive all the more attractive, given its lower price tag. OCZ will likely rely on its more value-oriented families to wage war on the pricing front.
Some Notes About Our Recommendations
A few simple guidelines to keep in mind when reading this list:
funny, I was just looking for a $100-$150 SSD not more then 5 mins ago.
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.
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.
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.
We don't include mail-in rebates. Sale prices are included.
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
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.
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).
The 16GB Kingston SSDNow S100 should be great for use with Intel SRT.
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.
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!
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.
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?
Had one ocz drive fail, and 3 crucial c300 drives fail. so far owned 6 intel ssd's and 0 failures.
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.
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.
At $240, I think the newly released Corsair Force 3 is a better option, with Read 550 MB/s , Write 510 MB/s and 85,000 4k random IOPS. Also, it's SATA 6Gbps
Link for Corsair Force 3, 120GB:
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Produ [...] 6820233181
link to Force 3 poor performance:
http://translate.google.com/transl [...] rmd%3Divns
I'm actually disappointed in the lack of effort in this article. Even as a new system builder, my 2 month research into SSD performance easily allows me the knowledge of measuring SSD true performance. You measure it in 4kb random read/write and 4k sequential read/write. Window 7 is natively read in these sectors. If you compare these SSDs to 4k performance/"current" market price, then you're actually giving us consumers a viable way to compare SSDs. This article just seems to list prices of SSDs without a mention of performance. Also, Max Write and Max Read are not ways to measure SSDs. Rarely do these SSDs function at that capacity. I love Tom's Hardware. Let's keep the standards high. This article = Epic Fail
I agree with this comment. Reading Anandtech.com and you will find the random read/write, mentioned above, is much more important than the metric you have provided in the article.
Please incorporate random read/write into the next month's article.
Buying the cheapest GB/$ is not the way to go. Reliability and other metrics must factor in.