Options
SSD units.
noise747
Posts: 30,862 Forum Member
✭✭✭
I need more space, so I am looking at a 250GB SS to replace my 120GB one. so which make.
Corsair, Samsung or Crucial. My old one is a corsair and it works fine, but I do not see them updating much in the last couple of years.
Corsair, Samsung or Crucial. My old one is a corsair and it works fine, but I do not see them updating much in the last couple of years.
0
Comments
A 250GB 850 EVO should be able to take about 400TBs written to it before it can't be written to anymore. For even heavy users, 400TBs is a phenomenal amount. You'd have to write about 237GBs a day to it for 5 years to use up all its write cycles. I don't think you could really ask for more than that.
I read that the 850 EVO has 2,000 write cycles and 2,000 x 200GBs is 400TBs. I say 200GBs because the operating system will be on while you're writing to it.
You're forgetting to account for how NAND flash storage works. You can't write byte-by-byte to the NAND storage. A whole NAND page has to be written even if only 1 byte needs changing. (The drive's firmware works to prevent this sort of extreme example where possible.)
Samsung's own total bytes written (TBW) endurance estimations for the 850 series are 75 TB for 120 & 250 GB drives, and 150 TB for the 500 GB & 1 TB models.
http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/minisite/SSD/downloads/document/Samsung_SSD_850_EVO_Data_Sheet_rev_1_0.pdf
If you direct the bulk of your long-term data (not programs) to a separate large HDD, you don't need even a 250GB SSD and real world system speed differences will be minor. I have an excellent Samsung 850 EVO Basic 120 GB SSD, dual booting W7 and W8, and after a year there is plenty of spare space (with occasional clear outs to the hdd). When money is a factor, it's still better value/performance to spend it on a small fast SSD + large HDD for data, than to buy large SSD(s) IMO.
I just moved from 120GB to a 500GB Samsung Evo after reading a good review. Am perfectly happy and the 5 year warranty is indeed reassuring. I used Macrium to clone old to new, which was painless, but the Samsung also comes with its own software to do the same.
Not so easy at the moment, being off work, I do not get paid sick pay after this week, just SSP.
I have a lot of software, A load of Adobe stuff, Vegas and other bits, it do not take long to take 120GB up. I do have some stored on a hybrid seagate, but I can tellt he difference.
I do not have any data stored on my SSD.
500 is out of my price range at the moment, it would be nice.
Still have no idea which make to go for. I do like Crucial, never had a Samsung drive, not that fond of Samsung stuff to be honest, but if the reliability is there then I will look at them
The endurance of the 120GB 840 EVO. The 850 EVO is supposed to have far more endurance.
http://ssdendurancetest.com/ssd-endurance-test-report/Samsung-840-EVO-120
Sustained write tests - though interesting - are not indicative of real world longevity as the drive has enough incoming data to ensure every NAND page is fully utilised to it's maximum potential.
The is not going to happen in the real word.
Okay, Samsung's estimated endurance figures are probably a little on the cautious site, but I seriously doubt you're going to get over 5 times the manufacturer's stated write endurance in the real world.
Yeah, I do agree that it's better to switch a system off before the next lot of writes, but it does give an indication of how long it could last for in the real world. Not that it matters anyway, because today's SSDs will have more than enough endurance for even heavy users.
http://techreport.com/review/24841/introducing-the-ssd-endurance-experiment
I think Samsung quotes 256GB 840 Pro having lifespan of around 750TB (and I would assume that would optimal writes), the test sample has passed 2,000 TB and still going.
Bottom line, home users do NOT need to worry about their drives wearing out before they reach end of useful life due to capacity issues. And I won't bother with anything below 200GB.
Speeds have improved since I had the corsair, I will have to look at the difference in speeds, between my Corsair and others when I feel a bit more like it. I expect there is a fair bit of difference.
I am thinking of maybe looking at something like a 500GB now, May be worth the extra cost, then it should last me for another 5 years.
My main problem is because my software is split over two drives, I will need to reinstall the whole machine.
Why not just go down the M.2 route? There's supposed to be less latency with them. I'm guessing that's because the communication between the SSD and the motherboard has been greatly reduced because of there being no need for a cable. Saying this though, you'd need an M.2 compatible motherboard, obviously.
Well I have stuff like PowerDirector 12 Ultimate (4GB, ridiculous!!!) Photoshop Lightroom and more but even so programs aren't what periodically fill up my C: drive, it's data, even though I try to save everything to separate hard drives. I occasionally forget (that desktop is SOOOO handy and some programs keep on trying to default to C: for data, some sites/browsers always try to save downloads to C: !).
So I've just cleared off another 17GB of stuff to the HDD, and all is well in d'@ve's 66GB SSD partition once again. :cool: I think most people would be surprised how much data, not programs, has crept onto their C: drive over the years... 120GB is way more than enough for most people, if data is kept off or regularly cleared off it. I can expand my partition up to that if I ever need to, due to ever-bloating software, but I will probably be fine until I need my next new system in maybe 5 years time.
Ways to save yourself a packet, or spend it on a new backup drive!
Because i have not got a M.2 motherboard
All my software is set to send data to the 2TB drive, apart from Vegas, where it goes to the seagate hybrid drive. Document and phto folders are linked tot he 2TB drive.
i expect there is some data on the c drive, but not much.
I got enough back up drives, a 1TB deck top hitachi, a 2TB toshiba portable and a 1TB seagate portable as well as my 1TB NAS.
Plus a load of usb thumb drives.
I will have a better look tomorrow at my options when I am more in the world of the living, I hope.
I really wouldn't bother with M.2 unless you have a specific reason. Price to performance ration is not worth it for a majority of home users.
And M.2 isn't so much about latency which is pretty much the same as SATA. The advantage of M.2 is that it hangs directly off the PCIe bus allowing much greater bandwidth and cable length has nothing to do with that. Usual problem of varying standards but there are M.2 pushing around 1GB/sec read and write. This is still slower than a PCIe SSD card.
Finally I personally think that M.2 is a stop gap solution with SSD on a DIMM being the way forward for high performance storage.
Been doing it for ages and not sure whether to change it or not, health is at 89% and nearly 3 years old with the new pc.