Should I get an SSD?
If so are there any brands that are better then others?
>>54295466
Yes.
Get a Samsung evo 850
Never get a Kingston. They changed specs after favourable reviews. I don't care if they don't do it anymore or their ssds are actually good. They need to die.
>>54295668
>mfw bought a hyperx savage and the benhmarks match the speeds written on the box
Feels gud
>>54295466
Intel for speed and reliability.
Adata is afforable and gets the job done.
OCZ is the fastest but don't depend on them.
Its honestly a placebo after a quicker windows startup time. Just get 1tb or 2tb hdd for the same price. Hell you can even get a 4tb hdd for cheap.
>>54295466
>If so are there any brands that are better then others?
some devices used to have shitty controller firmware and probably have some major issues (sandisk for one)
other than that, mlc flash is objectively better for durability than tlc flash, so try to find mlc flash ssds unless you're purely after the lowest $/gb (samsung evo are recommended but they use tlc over samsung pro which use mlc)
>>54295756
>Its honestly a placebo after a quicker windows startup time.
almost zero seek time and no issues when reading/writing to multiple files simultaneously is a placebo now?
>>54295466
> g/ms
what the fuck
that's mass flow rate
>>54295466
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B019H3B3OW
nice and cheap, not much point in getting anything else unless you need to do huge amounts of sustained writes. since it's a tlc drive, doing lots of writing will fill up the slc cache causing write speeds to drop.
http://www.thessdreview.com/our-reviews/pny-cs1311-ssd-review-120gb480gb/
>>54295466
SSD for a boot drive definitely. Intel is the best followed by Samsung.
>>54295668
Got a Kingston 120 GB with the old firmware/NAND, before they fucked with it. Definitely won't be buying from them again.
I have a plextor ssd, its pretty good.
Honestly im not too sure of speed issues. Photoshop opens in a second if thats anything to go off compared to ableton taking about 5 from my hdd
Im pretty sure a lot of people, shills perhaps, fear monger, and prompte intel as the only safe ssd, in the same way wd does
>>54295982
Intel shit is expensive, but damn if it doesn't perform. Samsung put out a wonky firmware, messing with speeds.
If you don't feel like shelling out for top of the line, adata gets it done.
>>54296016
Isnt it a better idea to just get "enterprise" tier of any brand if you want performance
>>54296454
Not necessarily. "Enterprise" can have a focus on durability, or handle multiple access well, operate with slightly lower power draw, etc.
Think of stuff like Registered RAM and ECC. It's "Enterprise" but not faster. Rather, It's more reliable.
>>54295466
>using RAM as permanent storage
Literally throw your data out.
>>54296841
Try again. RAM is used for caching. Both on SSD's and HDD's.
>>54295466
Get an SSD, but be aware of whether the computer's motherboard supports 6Gbps SATA. Mine doesn't, so I don't get to use the SSDs full speed.
>>54295668
>>54295945
My 850 Evo arrived today, I've been using a Kingston SV300...
Took this pic just before you posted this thread
>>54296928
And get a decent SSD. I had a Crucial whatever once and it was worse than a HDD. I have a Samsung now and it's good.
Any Kingston-owners know what was the last firmware that run on old chips? I bought my v300 in 2013 December and it is 506A. Speed have always been below mediocre until I switched to 850 evo when I skylaked myself. Using the v300 as laptop fuck-around drive now. Want to buy another SSD from my Dell d620 but it has only sata1 or 2. As a side note, the v300 weighs more then the laptops oem 54k rpm drive and has half the capacity. 850 is so light that I couldn't believe it.
>>54297094
>File storage
>NTFS
Topkek
>>54295466
get a samsung 950 pro
you will never look back
>>54295466
OP,
in order, here's what i would choose
Intel - apex of performance
Samsung - well done, high quality
Adata - solid, good choice
Crucial - very good, but paying more for gaming branding
i wouldn't buy any other ssd for myself, but for a customer on a budget,
WD, Toshiba, Seagate - but i'd warn them, of course
Just go and get a Samsung 850 EVO or 950 PRO if you have m.2 available.
Speaking of Samsung.
>Mfw they're still dominating the SSD market with their 850 line.
What the fuck are the other manufacturers even doing?
These Samsung drives have been out for a good while now and still other brands are pushing out drives, that are more or less slower in every single way and higher in price.
It's like they're not even trying.
>>54298311
you're such a fucking cock tease...
>but then i'm wanting to see anime tits - what's wrong with me that i got angry when she didn't finish?
>>54298311
/agreed, this hierarchy seems legit
>>54298156
As opposed to what? Do you keep windows positions formatted in FAT32?
Yes. Quiet and very fast.
>>54298311
I'd only buy Samsung or Intel myself, as the current situation stands. It's not like you're even paying much on the low end. 850 EVO 250GB is easily found under $90.
>>54295466
My Samsung 830 after 4 years with the same format, still strong.
No, SSDs are a meme. Only a retard would buy one.
thoughts on samsung 950 pro?
>>54298418
> what is exfat
>>54297993
You got cucked. The last firmware with the good NAND was 505A. http://www.anandtech.com/show/7763/an-update-to-kingston-ssdnow-v300-a-switch-to-slower-micron-nand
SSD have better performance - but if there is a problem with your disk - you loose information forever (vs hard drive which you at leach have a fighting chance)
>>54300768
exFAT is hacky bullshit. How can you possibly say it's better than NTFS?
I have a 128 gb 850 pro for my windows drive and a 850 evo for my steam games installation. So yes, you should get a samsung ssd at least.
>>54298334
Can't beat Worse Korea.
>>54295805
It really doesn't make much a difference with boot times, but no seek time is based af. Soo smooth and satisfying.
>>54296928
The real advantage of an SSD is no seek times. A cheap Seagate 2TB will get 200MB/s sequential, but when doing random 4K reads, it's way, way slower.
>>54295668
I fell for the Kingston when it was on sale, started getting erroneous SMART errors after a couple months
>>54297094
that's extra bad. Maybe the alignment is off
If you want absolute reliability: Intel
If you want speed and reliability but at a slight premium: Samsung
If you want speed (not the fastest, but really quick) and reliability: SanDisk
If you want mediocre speed and mediocre reliability but very cheap: Adata
If you want the absolute best: OCZ, Samsung and Intel's NVMe SSD.
>>54302607
>absolute best: ocz
LOL.
>>54300800
What even IS exFAT?
>Got a Kingston V300 as first SSD cause it was on sale and I thought SSD's were all so fast I wouldn't notice a difference.
>It dies a year later.
>Upgraded to 850 Evo.
Never looking back to Kingston.
>buy an NVMe SSD
>thermal throttles
well fuck. Time to buy some of those little stick on heatsinks
>>54295756
>Its honestly a placebo
Spotted the poorfag.
Random IO is the holy grail of storage. Even most flash drives do random IO better than even the fastest spindle...
Do you need to reinstall whole OS if you upgrade to SSD?
>>54302774
You can just clone it.
Through about Transcend SSD, I ordered the silver one
>>54302774
Nope, you can the partition in something like GParted. Look up "ssd partition alignment", you'll want to make sure that's done when you clone it to get full performance
Samsung Evo 850 512GB
Works good
>>54297094
Reminder that 256GB disks are automatically a lot better than 128GB ones regardless of brand, because they are actually 2x128 raided units
>>54295846
The fact that it's "2ms" or "0.5ms" should make it clear that it's not a single value with units g/ms, but two values: one with units g, one with units ms.
>>54302707
/fit/ posters
>tfw cheap as fuck chink SSD
>>54305399
all of them? I got a PNY 240GB for my wife's laptop and now I'm feeling jealous
>>54306560
Take a look at the 256GB and the 512GB on the Samsung 950 Pro.
The larger the capacity is the faster it is.
>>54306570
Not necessarily. They use differemt controllers is all. 500gb and above use a different comtroller.
>>54305399
256GB drives aren't 2x128GB raided units any more than 64GB drives are 8x8GB raided units... (or technically, 8x64Gb chips...).
Of course they can get faster reads/writes when they have more chips since the controller writes to them simultaneously, but RAID isn't involved, and most modern 128GB drives will basically max out the SATA bus on reads anyway.
