Sup /g/, I'm in a desperate need of advice.
I want to buy a 120/128 GB SSD for my laptop, but I really can't make up my mind. I was tempted to buy a Samsung 850 Evo due to its performance (i looked on userbenchmarks.com) but I just realized it is TLC-based. Moreover, my country's amazon site says tomorrow they're gonna put on sale a couple of MLC-based SSDs which already have a pretty good price, but they are far from the 850 Evo's performance. In example:
http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Transcend-SSD370S-128GB-vs-Samsung-850-Evo-120GB/m27843vs3484
So, I don't know. I neither want to spend more than 60-65€, nor I want to waste my money on shitty hardware. As far as I understood I should avoid TLC drives, but is that really relevant?
Samsung Pro or bust. Price is no object when it comes to data saftey
1. you really really REALLY want to put tiny bit more money up to get 250GB, like REALLY!
2. I would trust the new TLC from samsung because its much larger node, 40nm I think compared to 16nm or whatever was 840 evo, but of course its only assumption that larger node will help hold charge better and you will not have terrible read speeds after 2 years
3. performance difference between SSDs released in roughly same generation is minuscule and basically unobservable in every day day.
I bought 512 crucial MX100, its MLC and is reliable as hell
I recommend people crucial BX100 as sold performer for good price, it misses hardware encryption when compared to MX100 or MX200
But again, whatever you buy, please go for 250GB at least, its really huge difference in the freedom you get, and you are not worried that much with space managment and you get to use it more for games and addition programs
Just bought a bx100 500gb for $150 as a steam drive
>>51541209
Dude, I'm perfectly fine with small drive sizes, I enlarged my home pc's Windows partition from 70 to 100GB two months ago just to be able to defrag it properly, and even now it's not even 75% full. I just don't play vidyas and put my downloads on an external drive.
Anyways, I did a quick search and found this:
http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-850-Evo-120GB-vs-Crucial-BX100-120GB/3484vs3489
it says the BX100 has half the sequential write speed of the Samsung 850 Evo, do you say it's really not that relevant?
>>51541517
your claim is shit
>120GB Samsung 850 EVO
186 (not in the pic look review)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8747/samsung-ssd-850-evo-review/8
>120 GB Crucial BX100
194
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9144/crucial-bx100-120gb-250gb-500gb-1tb-ssd-review/8
and larger ssd will have better speeds and double the NAND endurance lifetime as well
>>51541720
uh, ok then.
>and larger ssd will have better speeds
how come?
>>51541939
ssd can do shit in parallel, and if you got 120GB ssd there are fewer nand chips lets say only 2 die chips at 64GB size, so it can write at the time only through two channels
but if its 4 x 64GB nand die, then its writing at that moment through 4 channels..
thats why you see in above pic such difference between various sizes
>>51541161
>what is backup
>>51541084
>but they are far from the 850 Evo's performance
That's because the EVO has a SLC cache which improves its performance vastly. If you run out of cache, it will slow down, but during normal PC usage you likely won't notice it.
>>51542187
So how does it impact on performance degradation? How does the BX100 handle it instead?
BTW thanks everyone for all the help given up to now
>>51542269
>So how does it impact on performance degradation?
Check out the TurboWrite section:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8747/samsung-ssd-850-evo-review/2
The BX100 should stay constant, as it doesn't have a SLC buffer.
>>51542187
>>51542269
its mostly bullshit
you can check MX200 crucial review on anandtech, they talk about their switch to use SLC cache, it barelly makes any difference and no one really talks about it
maybe guy is confusing SLC caching with EVO turbocaching, where they use RAM for cache which of course RAM being RAM has huge speeds...
unless you are buying kingston you will not notice the difference in speed. get whatever you want and keep regular backups, just like dealing with any type of storage
>>51542381
>maybe guy is confusing SLC caching with
EVO turbocaching, where they use RAM for cache which of course RAM being RAM has huge speeds...
TurboWrite is the SLC buffer, cache is the RAM.
Messed up the terms in >>51542187 , but as I said, TurboWrite does it job pretty well and the boundaries are only noticable at long write sessions, but for normal usage you'll get proper speed.
just get patriot blast, it has great reading speed.
Thanks everyone. I am now oriented on this >>51542385, but before I end up buying a crappy drive I would like to know if "modern" TLC SSDs are still prone to relevant loss of data.
