Welcome to the last column of 2011. We updated our recommendations to reflect the recent price drops on second-gen SandForce hardware. There are several good deals to be found for right about $150-200 bucks. Prices are falling, and we keep you informed.
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 read 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.
OCZ's Octane is really the only interesting bit of news since our last update. Based on the new Everest controller from Indilinx, Octane represents an effort by the company to make itself less reliant on SandForce, particularly as it tries to distinguish itself from a crowded market also using the same controller technology.
In terms of overall performance, Octane is fast. On a SATA 6Gb/s-equipped motherboard, it achieves sequential speeds similar to a Vertex 3 at the same capacity. Unfortunately, when it comes to random data, Octane gives up its position, as performance is pretty typical of most SATA 3Gb/s SSDs.
It's going to be interesting to see where OCZ goes from here. According to SandForce itself, OCZ sells the most SandForce-based drives. So, its own efforts to promote good performance wind up benefiting its competitors' products. Depending on the type of NAND inside, we've seen some variation in the performance of SandForce-based drives. For the most part, however, they behave fairly similarly, meaning OCZ's been doing a lot of marketing work for its competition. Although Octane isn't a Vertex 3 replacement, it does represent OCZ's first SSD with the company's own controller hardware. Might OCZ take this opportunity to start pushing prices on mainstream SSDs lower? We certainly hope so.
In the short term, if you're in the market for a storage expansion, it's a good time to consider an SSD. Although you'll still pay more than a dollar for every gigabyte of capacity, falling prices on solid-state storage are more tolerable in the fact of rising prices on conventional hard drives. Western Digital reports that it's slowly resuming production after the catastrophic flooding in Thailand, but there's no telling when we'll see disks drop to their pre-disaster levels. SSD vendors are taking advantage of the interruption in hard drive production, along with the holiday season, to offer great deals. As a result, we've seen prices fluctuate several times in the past 30 days.
Some Notes About Our Recommendations
A few simple guidelines to keep in mind when reading this list:
Why is the m4-256GB considered "faster" then the Force 3-240GB?
Compressible vs. Incompressible
hey toms, I don't know if it's just me, but with the GPU hierarchy chart, I don't know where each of the GPU's comes in performance wise, but with the SSD one, I have next to no clue.
If possible in future charts could you add a second column that would tell you about how many megabytes per second read and write is, and how many input output operations per second it does. You don't have to do it for every drive just every tier.
I believe this would help a lot.
hey toms, I don't know if it's just me, but with the GPU hierarchy chart, I don't know where each of the GPU's comes in performance wise, but with the SSD one, I have next to no clue.If possible in future charts could you add a second column that would tell you about how many megabytes per second read and write is, and how many input output operations per second it does. You don't have to do it for every drive just every tier.I believe this would help a lot.
sorry about that I'm using Dragon, it's still not completely used to the way I talk, and I don't catch everything. I correct this sentence
but with the GPU hierarchy chart, I pretty much know where each of the GPU's comes in performance wise
256gb is still too little to be useful. And at $375, it's still absurdly overpriced.
Unfortunately, HDDs are ridiculously overpriced as well, so this is essentially a terrible time to buy storage.
I am a fan of Tom's but when i decided to buy the Kingston Hyper X 120 GB Sata 3 SSD i did not take this chart in mind
. I was thinking between the Kingston and the Mushkin Chronos 120 GB SSD... Corsair and OCZ were out of the question..Intel aswell because the ridiculous price...
At $110 the Crucial m4 is an absolutely terrible choice in value/performance, especially when there's the Super Talent TeraNova 64GB: http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=FTM06N325H
The write speeds are so much higher with the TeraNova than with the m4 that it's almost embarrassing to compare the two at the same price range.
I just recently jumped on the SSD bandwagon after years of using a 5400RPM drive, and let me tell you SSD tech truly is a LEAPFROG advancement in technology. No small steps here.
It doesn't matter what you use a computer for, it's time everyone make the switch already.
256gb is still too little to be useful.
Too little for what? It's plenty to hold the OS and, for most people, their entire library of programs, games, etc. No, you don't want to store your Blu-ray rips, ISOs, home video/picture collections, and iTunes library on an SSD, because those take up a lot of room and don't really benefit much from the improved I/O.
[citation]And at $375, it's still absurdly overpriced.[/citation]FFS could people get past the $/GB thing. Yes, we all want it to be cheaper, but that doesn't make it overpriced.
Thanks Tom's, this article hurts. I now feel that I live in a Tier 10 world. Now when I fire up my rig, I will feel inadequacy. How many levels up will you notice a difference in performance Is a good question? (considering you have the 6gbs connection on your mobo.
I picked up an OCZ Solid 3 60GB for my wife's 'office' computer over the summer when they were on sale+rebate, and even as a Tier 10 device on the speed charts it is still a smoking fast drive compared to a traditional HDD, and it is plenty of space for win7, office, browsers, and some other productivity software. Personally I am holding out of a faster/larger drive to come down in price for my rig rebuild, but for those of you with a home/family PC that is getting slow there is nothing better than a cheap 60GB SSD, and then dedicate your old system HDD to be your Documents drive. So long as you already have a duel core processor and 4GB of ram, and SSD is the best single purchase you could make to bring things up to date.
Hi,
I love the best cpu/price and best gpu/price articles.
I love the SSD performance hierarchy at the end of the article, but can't really use the article itself. The best $200 SSD could be the fastest one without concern for size, or the largest one available without concern for speed. You do say you try to weight performance and size evenly, but I'm not sure that helps anyone.
Maybe you could pick a few size points (60-boot, 120-single dive, 240-large drive, or whatever) and then give the best SSDs at different price points within size. Then the recommendation becomes 'If you want to spend $100 for a boot drive buy this, if you want to spend $60 for a boot drive buy that'.
If someone asks me 'whats the best SSD to use to replace the 100GB spinning disk in my laptop?' the current format really doesn't help me answer.
Yeah !! OCZ Vertex 3 ~!!!
Why do I keep seeing Vertex Plus recommended by Tom's when it gets absolutely horrible reviews everywhere else? From what I've read just about anywhere, I wouldn't place important data on it even if you paid me to do it.
Thanks Tom's, this article hurts. I now feel that I live in a Tier 10 world. Now when I fire up my rig, I will feel inadequacy. How many levels up will you notice a difference in performance Is a good question? (considering you have the 6gbs connection on your mobo.
Read the article and look at the performance charts relative to HDDs. The difference in performance (on scale with hdds) between low-end SSDs and high-end SSDs is 3% (88%-85% faster than HDDs). So even at Tier10, you're still better off than any HDD owner. (if you bought into the hidden Tier11 of craptastic SSDs with
I’m wondering why the Adata S511 240 GB is in tier 2, but the Adata S511 120 GB is in tier 6? They both use synchronous flash and their read right speeds are the same. Why the different tiers?
hey toms, I don't know if it's just me, but with the GPU hierarchy chart, I don't know where each of the GPU's comes in performance wise, but with the SSD one, I have next to no clue.If possible in future charts could you add a second column that would tell you about how many megabytes per second read and write is, and how many input output operations per second it does. You don't have to do it for every drive just every tier.I believe this would help a lot.
+1
I just recently jumped on the SSD bandwagon after years of using a 5400RPM drive, and let me tell you SSD tech truly is a LEAPFROG advancement in technology. No small steps here.It doesn't matter what you use a computer for, it's time everyone make the switch already.
LOL, a 7200rpm fast drive would have been a LEAPFROG for you too...
Just FYI, there's a typo in the last sentence of the first paragraph of this article, "Prices are falling, and we keep you informed."
I think that you wanted to have the word "will" in there.
Also, I agree very much with tsnor's suggestion about organizing the review in a more helpful manner. Budget is important, but function (size + speed) is more important when you're considering investing in a new drive.