Although the HyperX 3K outpaced the original HyperX in virtually all of our tests, we should note that we're using data recorded from last year as we no longer have the drive. In other words, it's possible that when loaded with the latest firmware, the HyperX may deliver the same performance as the newer drive. Regardless, the HyperX 3K was certainly impressive, generally matching the performance of Intel's 520 Series.
That's great news, as the HyperX 3K 240GB is around 17% ($55) cheaper than the 520 Series 240GB. However, even with that being the case, Kingston's new arrival doesn't necessarily offer the best value. At $275, the HyperX 3K 240GB is $25 spendier than Crucial's m4 256GB and priced identically to Samsung's 830 Series 256GB. Additionally, OCZ's Vertex 3 240GB makes a compelling argument at $240 (13% cheaper than the 3K).
Pricing was the only issue we had with the original HyperX series, and that remains somewhat true with the 3K drives. Although we've seen better reliability from Kingston drives, we're not sure they're worth the markup. The same could be said about Intel's variants, as well. Overall, Kingston has provided a nice alternative to last year's drives and we see no reason why you shouldn't take advantage of the more affordable 3K lineup.
The business-minded SSDNow V+200 240GB is a little puzzling as it's no more reliable than the HyperX 3K, yet it's much slower and pricier. In fact, it costs the same amount as the standard HyperX. If you're hoping to save money on a SandForce SF-2281-based SSD with asynchronous NAND memory, you should consider OCZ's Agility 3 series, which costs about $230 for the 240GB model, with various other capacities also available.
Pros: Excellent performance, good value at $1.16 per gigabyte.
Cons: Still carries a small premium over competing SSDs.
Pros: Solid performance for an asynchronous SSD.
Cons: No more reliable than the HyperX 3K, yet it's much slower and pricier.