The Best Sub-$100 SSDs Tested, Reviewed

[hellokitty[hk]]

I don't think this is quite fair on the price/GB chart; I'm not entirely familiar with how the manufacturers configure the drive and how much space you actually have to use but...

Firstly is minor rounding errors, for example OCZ Vertex 4 115/128=89.8, which IMO should be 90c. I don't know if you counted cents or what though.

Secondly the chart treats 120GB ssds as though they are 120GB, and AFAIK they are 128GB but are called 120GB as a manner of subtracting out a bit to make a round number and to compensate for space lost with TRIM. IMO it is unfair to calculate the values like this, it should be 128GB for all 128GB drive, 96 for the Kingston HyperX 3K and 64 (as it is) for all 64GB drives.
So the Samsung 840 should actually be 86c.

Also the Kingston HyperX 3K is clearly wrong, I think the author made the mistake of doing GB/Price on this one. It should really be 100/96=1.04c, or 100/90=1.11.

 

[Steve]

I don't think this is quite fair on the price/GB chart; I'm not entirely familiar with how the manufacturers configure the drive and how much space you actually have to use but... .

You are right I don’t think you are entirely familiar with how it works. It’s no mistake that some drives are called 120GB and others 128GB, there is believe it or not an 8GB difference in capacity once formatted.

However you are right about the Vertex 4 pricing, it should be 90c rather than 89c, can’t believe I am having my balls busted over 1c [FONT=Wingdings][/FONT] I will fix that now.

Secondly the chart treats 120GB ssds as though they are 120GB, and AFAIK they are 128GB but are called 120GB as a manner of subtracting out a bit to make a round number and to compensate for space lost with TRIM. IMO it is unfair to calculate the values like this, it should be 128GB for all 128GB drive, 96 for the Kingston HyperX 3K and 64 (as it is) for all 64GB drives.
So the Samsung 840 should actually be 86c.

That's not at all how it works :S

Anyway call it unfair if you want but I think it’s irrelevant whether the stated capacity or formatted capacity is used for the cost per gigabyte calculation.

 

[hellokitty[hk]]

I'm not sure either ? I thought that it was that they should show a capacity difference when formatted because some manufactures allocate space for RAISE or TRIM or something and it's unusable and doesn't show up as available space... but that they're all in fact 128GB drives. I think it'd be very weird logistically to only have a 120GB drive?
Anyway I suppose it doesn't really matter and formatted capacity may be better if you're not able to adjust the trim/raise space (if it exists).

I have good confidence that the $90 Samsung 830 128GB is the best choice and would have won though

 

[Anthpny]

My laptop drive is 135GB formatted. One 128GB won't do it as I need to move around files to get the image down to 70-80GB, which I am not in the mood for. The Sammy 128GB 830 has been under $90 for the last month or so. I have thought of using two 90GB's or 128GB's in RAID 0 on the laptop but I really didn't want to spend more than $100.

I want a 256GB but I fear getting even an Agility 4 for about $100 isn't going to happen so we'll see come next week.