Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Tom's Hardware's SSD Charts

Best SSDs For The Money: July 2014
By

Over the past five years, CPU performance has hit new and unforeseen heights, and processors are increasingly spending time waiting on data from hard drives. This is what makes storage today's most glaring bottleneck. Overcoming it requires an SSD.

At the end of the day, the real-world differences between SSDs in a desktop environment aren't altogether very large. The most important jump happens when you go from a hard drive to (almost) any solid-state drive. With that said, there are measurable attributes that separate one SSD from another. But you'll need to approach a purchasing decision as the sum of many parts. Within individual apps, you'll hardly notice the difference between most SATA 3Gb/s and faster SATA 6Gb/s drives. It's the more taxing workloads that make a faster device worth owning.

Sequential performance is an important SSD attribute, but there are points beyond which it's difficult to make use of the performance in a real and meaningful way. That's why the hierarchy chart below relies on information provided by our Storage Bench v1.0, as it ranks performance in a way that reflects average daily use for a consumer workload. It's simply a ranking using one metric, and not gospel. But as far as single-number performance is concerned, it is serviceable for our needs.

Display all 27 comments.
  • 0 Hide
    adamovera , July 19, 2014 12:13 AM
    Archived comments are found here: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-2182894/ssds-money-august-2012.html
  • 4 Hide
    kalmquist , July 19, 2014 2:01 AM
    "We only recommend SSDs we've actually used."

    Is that why you don't mention Crucial's MX100 line? With the current pricing on the 256GB and 512GB MX100 drives, it's hard to justify buying anything else at those capacity points.
  • 3 Hide
    envy14tpe , July 19, 2014 3:58 AM
    I agree with kalmquist. At the price of the MX100 it is tempting to buy a 512GB SSD. (never would have said that last year)

    MX100 256GB is ~$115 and the 512GB is $215. Hard to beat those prices.
  • 3 Hide
    dusty13 , July 19, 2014 5:14 AM
    leaving out the mx100 here actially spoils the list i think. please update after a test, i have seen it perform practically on par with samsungs evo but being even cheaper. this drive i think is the way to go for 500gb and up at the moment.
  • 2 Hide
    Sakkura , July 19, 2014 6:09 AM
    As the others have said, the Crucial MX100 is a MAJOR omission here. Even more so when both the slower M500 and the pricier M550 make the list. The MX100 performs practically identically to the M550 for a price almost identical to that of the M500.
  • 0 Hide
    AsTheDeath , July 19, 2014 6:41 AM
    With regards to the "Other solid state options", do you reckon another USB 3.0 drives roundup/review would be doable? The last one has been some time ago, but I did find that really helpful and I'm in fact typing this from Windows 8.1 installed on my SanDisk Extreme 32GB USB :D 

    Going by the fact that you're still recommending that stick, I'll assume I'm not doing too badly, but an overview of the current state of USB 3.0 would be nice.
  • 0 Hide
    kamhagh , July 19, 2014 8:30 AM
    where's crucial M500 250gb?:(  thats so cheap and good at same time ! only 100$
  • 1 Hide
    kamhagh , July 19, 2014 8:31 AM
    wait :o  MX100 is only 110$? i tought its like 180$ !!! thats amazing !(250gb)
  • 0 Hide
    CodeMatias , July 19, 2014 9:24 PM
    When will we get a real cost/performance chart rather than the ridiculous thing that's been used for ages? Just take the performance, divide by price, and divide by the number of GB, and let people sort by 4k composite, sequential composite, and a test bench score. And best to group them by capacity, since cost per gb drastically decreases between 64gb and 1tb
  • -2 Hide
    msroadkill612 , July 20, 2014 3:55 PM
    a/ hard to believe u need more than 64gb for a boot drive

    b/ the killer factor is access speed vs a HDD - who gives a rats about transfer speed? - huge is huge

    given the above, despite the scoffers, i still think raid 1 w/ a ssd primary & a hdd secondary could work well in some apps. none seem to have tried it & benched it meaningfully i can see

    most realtime work is done by primary (ssd) drive

    fast & cheap always up redundancy

    d/ i hear rumors than the sandisk cache thingo has weird firmware - flushes the cache a lot - defeats the purpose? Many say its great.

    loved the idea when first heard it, now not so sure
  • 0 Hide
    youcanDUit , July 20, 2014 7:48 PM
    so the 10 year warranty isn't really a 10 year warranty?
  • 0 Hide
    youcanDUit , July 20, 2014 7:48 PM
    Quote:
    so the 10 year warranty isn't really a 10 year warranty?


    flushes cache? is that bad?
  • 1 Hide
    Onus , July 20, 2014 9:22 PM
    The difference in idle power between a Samsung (0.34W) and an AData (1.21W) could be a big deal in a laptop, and is worth mentioning.
  • 0 Hide
    Brogan , July 22, 2014 12:28 AM
    So why aren't the 850 Pro's included in the charts? Based on the review a few weeks ago, their numbers top virtually every drive on this list.
  • 0 Hide
    Sakkura , July 22, 2014 8:16 AM
    Probably has to do with the "for the money" part. The 850 Pro is pricey. You can get a 512 GB Crucial MX100 for about the same money as a 256 GB Samsung 850 Pro. For most people, the MX100 would be a much better option.
  • 0 Hide
    arcus1200 , July 24, 2014 11:49 AM
    Crucial MX100 is almost as fast as the more expensive M550, the only downside is that they don't make a 1Tb SSD (I really hope they will produce it in the end for a price around $300,00 :p ).
  • 1 Hide
    kamhagh , July 26, 2014 3:22 AM
    Your ssd list makes me realize how fast life goes!!!
  • 0 Hide
    cypeq , July 30, 2014 3:10 AM
    Samsung 840 Pro data displays writes speed instead of IOPS
  • 0 Hide
    msroadkill612 , August 3, 2014 5:27 AM
    being silly. as many are, say u r broke or trying to stretch an old pcS life ...

    As they say, lottsa ram wins, even if slow.

    So what say a big swap file on an ssd?

    My 2gb, soon to be replaced, 98xp PC has a 4gb HDD swap file (suggested by windows) & it crawls - u can hear it
    swapping
    at least the ssd can be re-used - ram upgrades cannot
  • 0 Hide
    msroadkill612 , August 3, 2014 8:18 AM
    Mabe the conventional logic of ssdS is all wrong?

    An entire copy of your system disk on cheap/fast, but niggardly on space, storage - really?

    that means being anal with what goes where for ever more - time & hassle & maybe risk?

    why not make it their problem?

    seagate etc. hybrid 1tb drive - 8 gb cache onboard - $~100

    something like sandisk intellicache~? 32gb ~$45 - not a drive - just a cache

    maybe a small ssd for known scratch files like win swap etc - $45 64gb - $85 128gb - kingston?

    would make a great raid 1 rig

    I am told win 8 installs on 128gb can be a struggle - absurd

    In theory, only cache what needs caching, not clutter.

    Dont quote me if i am wrong (tho i cant see where, if they work ok)

    Very fast almost all the time

    Time is money - this is KISS



Display more comments
React To This Article