Disagreed. Cacheless SSD's as system drive are sometimes around HDD speeds.For more than 90% of users, the difference between SSDs won't be noticeable - simply buy the cheapest one you can.
If you have specific needs (photo editing, video rendering, etc), then you probably already know what you need anyways...
As a SYSTEM drive yes - but those aren't what most people are buying - that is already bundled with your system (90% don't build their own). When most people are buying an SSD, they will be buying an addon drive...
Probably because the vast majority of people don't need them? For media and backups, traditional HDDs are perfectly fine - not to mention VASTLY cheaper per gigabyte...It's amazing to me how dudes spending way over MSRP on GPU but won't spend $400 for a 4TB or $700 for an 8TB SSD.
Yup I saw this on the one I tried, plus the lifetime is horrible. Luckily they were only $20 apiece but I blew out two (120GB) HP S700s within months. With no cache, you get horrendous write amplification since any random 512 byte write gets written out (re-writing 4MB or whatever the cell size is to rewrite 1/2048th of a MB...) instead of sitting in a on-drive cache waiting a bit for the other related writes to come in first.
IMO, at this point in history, anything less than 500GB is a complete waste. Even 500GB doesn't make sense now that 1TB are ~$100.
Great article, thanks!