How to Choose an SSD on a Flash Sale

theruck

Posts: 484   +296
Samsung drives do not work with OSX Monterey properly so avoid those for hackintosh. the wd SN750 is the better option
 

Yenega

Posts: 302   +206
WD SSDs are actually pretty good now. Among the very best for consumers. I like my SN850. However my older 970 Evo Plus still flying too. I have so many SSDs just lying around šŸ˜‚ mostly SATA but also some M.2 NVME ones

My Samsung 830 256GB still works 100% too, prob 10 years old (in my server)
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 4,536   +3,906
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...
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,401   +1,034
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...
Disagreed. Cacheless SSD's as system drive are sometimes around HDD speeds.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 4,536   +3,906
Disagreed. Cacheless SSD's as system drive are sometimes around HDD speeds.
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...
 

DZillaXx

Posts: 435   +560
Disagreed. Cacheless SSD's as system drive are sometimes around HDD speeds.

Maybe in Sequential. In Random even an old CF Card can make the OS feel more snappy.

HDD's are horrible as system drives for the lack of Random IO performance.

HDD is fine as a game drive. Not as a OS drive.

That being said, buy a SSD that will last if it is for a OS. For Extra Storage, I'd just stay away from the real budget brand crap.
 

hwertz

Posts: 102   +53
I wouldn't spend $400 for 4TB or $800 for 8TB. A 4TB HDD is like $70. I would get a nice, fast, 1TB or less SSD, put Ubuntu on there (I guess you can put Windows if you want...), and put my TB after TB of stuff on a hard drive.

(I also put swap on my HDD -- ideally you have enough RAM that you don't swap, but who wants to blow through their lifetime write cycles swapping?)

 

hwertz

Posts: 102   +53
Disagreed. Cacheless SSD's as system drive are sometimes around HDD speeds.
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.
 

BadThad

Posts: 818   +948
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!
 

Satish Mallya

Posts: 201   +188
TechSpot Elite
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!

Still useful - I use a 120 gig as a cache drive for P2P transfer and file check before moving it off to a NAS. It only has to be as large as my largest transfer.
 

Ben Myers

Posts: 166   +67
Does anybody here care about buying a product from a brand with a good track record, rather than thoise curious sounding Asian brands turning up in high volume and low price point at Newegg and MicroCenter?
 

Bullwinkle M

Posts: 623   +500
I don't have a valid reason to use an SSD with an SLC cache
I'd rather keep my data if the power goes out

I also have no reason to purchase a Crucial MX500, even if it is less expensive than the identical Western Digital SSD

I use the free version of Acronis 2012 for Western digital hard drives because it maintains compatibility with all my various Operating Systems when using a Western Digital SSD

Although Crucial also allows you to download a free copy of Acronis, it is a newer "gimped" version and not the full version

Crucial also never had a free copy of Acronis 2012 because they did not make hard drives back then