Project Reality Forums

I have a maximum spending limit of $300 for an SSD, from what I can tell there really is no drive at that price point that will not put your data at risk. If an SSD dies your data will not be recoverable, and I have yet to see a drive without at least one review claiming data loss from drive failure. A lot of sub-5s I viewed are people who had to RMA their drives within the first 12 months, with a few people displeased over performance numbers. It seems to me that if you can't afford to lose your data, you probably can't afford to put it on an SSD.

For me, my data will not be critical or irreplacable. I'm trying to choose between a number of options right now, basically narrowed it down to two paths:

1) Cheap drive just for OS/games, nothing particularly powerful but enough to make ArmA 2 play more enjoyable and reduce boot time. This would be the Crucial C300 64 GB hands down for me, though the Intel 320 80 GB is tempting as well.

2) A competitive mid-range drive with double the space space. This would ensure that I don't feel the need to buy another drive at least until I buy a completely new computer in 3-5 years, and possibly longer. I haven't really figured out what drive this might be, but right now I'm thinking Crucial C300 128 GB, Intel 320 160 GB or 510 120 GB.

In terms of a reasonable balance of reliability, price and speed (in order of importance), I think the C300 is winning in both the 64 and 128 GB versions over competitors. However, no matter which you buy, you're taking a risk by putting any kind of irreplaceable data on it.

For me drive failure is something I really want to avoid as I will be mainly using this drive for working at higher speeds more than just running games from.

As I said, no price limit on suggestions but the cheaper, the better with looking for value for money

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:For me drive failure is something I really want to avoid as I will be mainly using this drive for working at higher speeds more than just running games from.

As I said, no price limit on suggestions but the cheaper, the better with looking for value for money

Well my suggestion would be to have all the programs + OS on the SSD, and your important data at the very least on a RAID1 setup, if not backed up to the web in 1+ place(s). Unless the programs you use have tons of tiny files (like say the BF2 editor - predit) to load at startup or continuously, there isn't much point in putting the datafiles on the SSD as well.

I ran the programs off the ssd & data off my raid drives and you maintain the excellent aspects of excellent responsiveness with the knowledge that your data is safe(r). Oh and honestly, don't stress much about benchmarks, like if one drive transfers sequentially @ 400MB/s vs 550MB/s, as it will make f*all difference. It's the comparatively insane 4kb read/writes and minuscule response times that are the gamechanger for SSD owners.

Going for the Intel 320 series, cant find a fault on it on google.

bumpy, considering doing my upgrade this week and still not sure what SSD to get. It would be good if some of you can recommend some SSDs as per what I said before:

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:What would you all suggest is the best SSD, value for money wise? No budget limit but the cheaper the better and not really looking for anything that is going to deteriorate over time.

Would like as many people to chip in here with what they think is best, even if its been suggested

Cheers!

@Mike, how is that Intel 320 series SSD working out for you?

Got a Kingston SSDNow V+ 64 GB... its too small. (Can't really feel a speed increase in ArmA2, when I moved it from my SATA 6GB/s HDD to the SSD (SATA 3GB/s).

Win 7: ~ 25GB
ArmA + mods: ~20GB
BF2 (+PR): ~10 GB
Pagefile: 6GB

= 61GB
Thats a tight fit imo.


So you should probably consider going 128 GB.

It might also be cheaper to buy multiple smaller ones (2x 64GB) and put them in a RAID (i.e. RAID0).

Also: You should put that SSD in AHCI mode as it will provide TRIM. This is supposed to extend the lifetime of SSDs from what I read.

There are some problems with switching on AHCI mode after installing windows, so you should have it in AHCI when you instatll windows.

I got over my objection to SSD failures, I'm buying a Crucial M4 128 GB sometime this month. I primarily based my choice off this Tom's Hardware review - Best SSDs: $200 To $315 : Best SSDs For The Money: July 2011

It's $220 for the 128 GB model, which is pretty reasonable for me. It's got lower write speeds, if you want faster speeds they recommend a Vertex 2. A 120 GB vertex 2 is 138 GBP on overclockers for the week: OCZ Vertex 2E Bigfoot 120GB 3.5" SATA-II Solid State Hard Drive [OCZSSD3-2VTX120G]

The only thing the M4 gets over the Vertex 2 is pretty sweet read speeds, more than 50% higher, but right speeds on the Vertex 2 are more than 50% higher than the M4. Since you're going to be writing a lot of big files, that seems like the best idea. If you are willing to spend 317 GBP you can get the 256 GB M4, best of both worlds.


In short, my opinion is:
Budget option - Vertex 2 120 GB
Faster read option - Crucial M4 256 GB

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:bumpy, considering doing my upgrade this week and still not sure what SSD to get. It would be good if some of you can recommend some SSDs as per what I said before:



@Mike, how is that Intel 320 series SSD working out for you?

Got told there is a problem with the 320 series (with no sauce though) so I have not got it yet.

Recently Sent my 60gb OCZ Agility SSD back to ebuyer after it making my computer have problems and started BSOD. Ebuyer wouldnt give me my money back but sent me a new 1 so im just going to put it on ebay without opening it.

Then will do a propper search on an ideal ssd, some above look good.

I don't really understand why many choose an SSD as it's main-everything-drive, a 60GB is enough for Windows, Photoshop, PR and some other frequent used programs. No need to buy a 500GB one or so.

Well, you dont put Windows PR and programs only on it. Some people put Arma on it and other heavy games, raw videos other things that need fast write and read speeds, but use HDD as pure storage, so 120 GB SSD is optional.

I certainly wouldn't mind a 500GB SSD if I had the cash to afford it

Triggerfinger wrote:I don't really understand why many choose an SSD as it's main-everything-drive, a 60GB is enough for Windows, Photoshop, PR and some other frequent used programs. No need to buy a 500GB one or so.

Cossack112 wrote:Well, you dont put Windows PR and programs only on it. Some people put Arma on it and other heavy games, raw videos other things that need fast write and read speeds, but use HDD as pure storage, so 120 GB SSD is optional.

As I said on in the OP:

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:Right now I'm working with very large .max scenes and will be soon working with v this post in the period while I'm waiting for my scene to save very large .psd files etc and saving 143mb .max scene (may not sound that large but it is) is taking around 30secs to a min to save with a normal SATA HDD.

I'm also not that much of a big game player these days with the most demanding games I play are PR:BF2 and ARMA2 and I can run them fine with my current setup so this upgrade is really aimed at modelling, mapping, lightmapping, photoshop and generally high intensity modding work.

So I'm mainly thinking that I really need to be looking into some SSDs but don't know that much about them but what I do know that my current motherboard can't really use one so I'm really looking at a full upgrade pretty much...

ie, I'm not getting this SSD for gamging and running windows etc fast (that's just a bonus in my view), I'm getting it to be able to help me with my work....

Right been looking at reviews again and it appears that since I last looked at this some new SSDs and reviews have came out

A really good simple review here featuring some of the new SSDs: Best SSD HDD | Hardware Revolution

It also seems from reading the reviews that pretty much no matter what SSD you get, its going to degrade over time just down to how they work and actually the ones I've been looking at, are still somewhat the best at dealing with it even thou they get hit pretty badly so the only option to avoiding it is not to get an SSD.

found some useful tips here too on how to increase the life span of your SSD here: Corsair Force GT 120GB SSD review


I'm now thinking of going for the new Corsair 120GB Force GT SSD - 2.5" SATA-III 6Gb/s - Read 555MB/s Write 515MB/s SSD as it looks to be what I'm looking for.

The Force Series GT is particularly adept at moving compressed data. You'll appreciate this real-world benefit if you work with music, movie and graphics files.

Will probably be ordering it by the end of the day or tomorrow with the rest of the stuff so if anyone has any thing they would like to point out, please speak now.

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino']Anyways here's what I'm thinking so far.

Mobo: Asus P8P67 EVO R3 P67 Socket 1155 8 Channel HD Audio ATX Motherboard, Alt Link: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. - Motherboards- ASUS P8P67 PRO (REV 3.1)
CPU: Intel Core i7 2600k 3.4GHz Socket 1155 8MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor
CPU Fan: Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro rev 2 Socket 775, 1156, 1155, 1366, AM2, AM3 Heatpipe CPU Cooler
RAM: Corsair CMX8GX3M2A2000C9 DDR3 XMS3 8GB Desktop Memory, Alt Link: XMS3 ? 8GB Dual Channel DDR3 Memory Kit (CMX8GX3M2A2000C9)
SSD: Corsair 120GB Force GT SSD - 2.5" SATA-III 6Gb/s - Read 555MB/s Write 515MB/s, Alt Link: Force Series? GT 120GB SATA 3 6Gb/s Solid-State Hard Drive - Force Series GT - SSD
Windows 7 Pro: Microsoft Windows 7 Professional - Complete package.. | Ebuyer.com

Total: ?818.53

Cheers

bumpy? Could really do with some feedback here, cheers

Yeah, go for Corsair. Its not bad and they have best costumer service what I ever seen.

Was originally going with corsair myself with the ssd, Like I have with most of my hardware in my comp. They have good tech support and warranty.

Corsair 120GB Force GT SSD - 2.5" SATA-III 6Gb/s.. | Ebuyer.com

This one though seems promising and I might have to copy you and purchase it myself.

Edit: Found it a little bit cheaper at scan.co.uk rhino.
?178.94 inc VAT
Works out at ?183.73 with delievery.

Cheers, thou since I get free delivery with ebuyer I don't think its worth saving the ?1 over

I will also be ordering this by the end of the day unless anyone can see a reason why I should get something different.

In this review of drives the Force GT came in fairly well compared to other 120 GB drives - AnandTech - The SandForce Roundup: Corsair, Kingston, Patriot, OCZ, OWC & MemoRight SSDs Compared

I would buy one too, but I'm not that interested in experimenting with the SF 2200 BSOD issues. They're super quick though, 1/3 faster than the Crucial I'm probably going to get.

Corsair said that there was issue with this controller but, no its gone. Corsair gave you chance to change it to different improved controller if you had one of those affected, because old one was factory issue. So this is stable. If it still happens, you can send it back to Corsair and they will send you back new one. This is the part, what I like about Corsair.

Cossack112 wrote:Corsair said that there was issue with this controller but, no its gone. Corsair gave you chance to change it to different improved controller if you had one of those affected, because old one was factory issue. So this is stable. If it still happens, you can send it back to Corsair and they will send you back new one. This is the part, what I like about Corsair.

Are you talking about the june recall of 100% of Force 3s? The problem with the SF 2281 controller hasn't been addressed by Corsair at all as far as I can tell, and the June recall was a result of manufacturing errors on Corsairs side, not the SF controller.