Back to Article

  • Grebuloner - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    With the news of OCZ stock trading being halted today, are OCZ SSDs still a good buying choice? Reply
  • xTRICKYxx - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    That's a good question. Reply
  • n0x1ous - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    Still? Still implies that they were ever a good buy. Reply
  • 3ogdy - Friday, November 29, 2013 - link

    That's exactly what I thought in the first place. Since when were OCZ's products good?
    Get "top-notch" performance by trading reliability? That's stupidity, not good engineering.
    I wish they disappear because they really deserve to go to hell. I know nobody forces us to buy their hardware and that one less player means less competition so it would be worse for the customer, but there were just too many issues with their products. I always advised AGAINST buying their products and I'm glad I did that. (from PSUs to SSD and whatever else - their policies were too dumb).
  • LtGoonRush - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    Yeah it's very disappointing to see OCZ drives recommended with their known reliability issues. This isn't like harddrives where everyone has their anecdotal experiences, you can look at real return rate statistics and see how bad it is, and draw reasonable inferences as to why. Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    Just heard the news myself too and updated the article accordingly. Reply
  • Flunk - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    They only have the last slot in one of the recommendation groups so it's fairly fair to say that they're not a good buying choice totally disregarding any possible bankruptcy. Reply
  • melgross - Thursday, November 28, 2013 - link

    No! There is no guarantee that the warranty will be honored. With HDD prices being what they are these days, I just throw them away when they go bad, but SSD prices are still too high for that. Reply
  • Gabriel_GR - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    So the Samsung 840 Pro series isn't a recommendation any more?

    Not complaining just asking since I'm in the market for my first SSD.
  • flyingpants1 - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    Actually there is a big difference, the EVO has slower r/w speeds but it actually has a RAM cache, it's called Turbowrite or something like that.. I would probably go with the EVO anyway. Reply
  • emenk - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    From an earlier 840 review (not Pro nor EVO): "We will see about final pricing in a couple of weeks, but for now the 840 looks like the entry level SSD to buy. The 840 Pro is likely the drive to buy for your primary notebook/workstation, while the 840 is the drive to recommend for a relative who isn't as concerned with performance and has a much lighter workload."

    Then they did a review of the 840 EVO and liked it even better. At least I think that's the case. Hopefully, I can post links?
  • julandorid - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    This is odd. I've just saw the Anandtech's review of the Sandisk Extreme II and that SSD is outperformed on the most tests by the Samsung SSD 840 Pro.

    Overall I think 840 Pro is still the KING! 256GB is a $3 more expensive than 240GB version of Extreme II, at least in Amazon.

    I don't understand why Anandtech don't even mention it?
  • dylan522p - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    Not nearly as consistent though. Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    The 840 Pro is still a good drive but better drives have come out since it was released. The biggest "problem" in the 840 Pro is its IO consistency, which isn't as good when compared with other high-end drives. For a heavy user that is an aspect you should pay attention to because you will likely be operating at steady-state or close to it. Reply
  • jjj - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    OCZ Filing for Bankruptcy, Announces Offer From Toshiba to Purchase Assets
  • Hrel - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    Very fast Sandforce drive for $140 in 240GB capacity. 500MB/s+ performance with 2 MILLION hours MTBF rating.
    Best bang/buck, right there. Unless you need SLC (TEENY TINY % of market) this is really the only drive anyone should be looking at in SATA.

    In mSATA? Plextor M5M,
    2.4 MILLION hours MTBF. 400MB/s+ write performance with high IOPS and that MTBF, mmmm.
  • JDG1980 - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    OCZ drives should really never have been on the list in the first place due to their well-known reliability problems, but now that OCZ has declared itself bankrupt, it's additionally imperative that these entries should be removed immediately. Reply
  • gus6464 - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    I know this site has a soft spot for OCZ but they should never be on any recommended list. Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    OCZ had reliability issues with their older drives (like Vertex 3, Petrol etc) but their latest drives have been quite solid. I have, however, updated the article based on today's news. Reply
  • gus6464 - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    I dropped an M5M on my new Dell 7000, great little drive. Reply
  • Meaker10 - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    The m500 msata goes up to 480GB. Reply
  • Endgame124 - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    The question of the day, of course, is 1 "enthusist" 240GB SSD, or 2 lesser priced 120GB SSDs in RAID 0. Cheaper drives in RAID 0 have always seemed to make the most sense to me from a performance and cost stand point (I grabbed 3x 60GB vertex 1s instead of 1 larger drive for the same price), but maybe things have changed with the cost drop in NAND? Reply
  • dylan522p - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    God no a bigger drive is always better unless you are going for 500+ GB Reply
  • jdvorak001 - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    You refer to better cost and performance characteristics of getting a SSD-based RAID-0.
    I'd be afraid of the combined probability of a failure.
  • ShieTar - Thursday, November 28, 2013 - link

    That was the question of the day on a sunny spring day back in 2010. Maybe 2011.

    Today, the potential improvement in peak sequential speed is somewhat inconsequential for most tasks. On the other hand, when it comes to fast response times, you loose speed because you introduced organization overhead. Keep in mind that most 240GB SSDs will already come with twice the NAND chips compared to the 120GB SSD, so you havn't double anything on the physical side by combining two 120GB drives.

    Also, the 240GB version of most "enthusiast" drives is close to 200$ anyways, and the reasonable cheap 120GB drives are not far below 100$ either. So there really isn't much saving potential anymore.
  • mgl888 - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    I'm using two OCZ SSDs myself - a Vertex 3 and Agility 2. Haven't had any reliability issues with them. Maybe I'm just lucky. Reply
  • bplewis24 - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    I have 3 or 4 OCZ SSDs. Two Vertex' and one Vertex II. Never had an issue. Reply
  • jdvorak001 - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    Whatever happened to Intel drives that they don't make it to recommendations today?

    My context: I do software development and data processing (read: heavy load on my drive). I've been using SSDs in my workhorse machines for 5 years now. I've sticked to pre-SandForce Intel drives primarily due to their reliability. I never had an issue.
  • Kristian Vättö - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    I don't find Intel's consumer offerings to be very competitive at the moment. The SF-2281 is really starting to show its age and it can't compete in performance with the other high-end SSDs. Intel also tends to price themselves out of the game, although 240GB SSD 520 at $180 is a fairly good deal. I've got absolutely nothing against Intel but I think there are better drives in the market at the moment. Reply
  • psyside1 - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    Leave 20% OP on the 840 Pro, and watch how rips trough all benchmarks. Reply
  • kallogan - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    Toshiba q series pro = Best ssd.
  • Zalansho - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    Seagate 600 in the 240GB size is, as of this posting, on Newegg at $130 w/ free shipping. What a deal! Reply
  • marc1000 - Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - link

    seein the OCZ bankrupcy news right next to this one makes me happy I purchased only Intel SSDs. I have an old 320 (went to notebook) and a newer 530 (on my main rig). Reply
  • Endgame124 - Thursday, November 28, 2013 - link

    If you're concerned about failure, you probably should be running a mirror at minimum. If you're going to that length, then I'd bet RAID 10 of 4x 120GB Samsung Evos would be faster than a mirror of 240GB SanDisk Extreme IIIs. Reply
  • ShieTar - Thursday, November 28, 2013 - link

    I'd take that bet, I think. Sure twice the number of EVOs should be able to achieve a higher sequential speed, but the SanDisk absolutely kills the EVO when it comes to random writes, by more than a factor 2. I think in every reasonably well designed real-world benchmark the waiting periods on the EVOs would just be too long for them to keep up with the SanDisks. Reply
  • Mugur - Thursday, November 28, 2013 - link

    What makes EVO a great SSD is that "SLC" cache they have (same NAND, but used with 1 bit per cell instead of 3) and the RAPID (yeah, that's the name) RAM cache you can enable. So for a Windows boot drive in AHCI I can recommend it wholeheartedly, just not for RAID setups or other OSes. You also need a fairly decent cpu (at least a SB core i3/i5) and 8 GB of RAM (it takes 1 GB out of 8) to max out the performance of RAPID. If you also can spare like 10% for overprovisioning (Samsung's utility is very nice and friendly), you may feel you have the fastest drive on the planet... :-) Reply
  • czesiu - Thursday, November 28, 2013 - link

    what about Kingston KC300? Reply
  • James5mith - Thursday, November 28, 2013 - link

    Neither of the SSD's in the enthusiast recommendation actually show consistent performance in your reviews. Maybe I'm missing something, but (for example) the Corsair Neutron "shows" as a much more consistent drive both with and without over provisioning (I'm basing this on the graphs that you post in the reviews). Heck, my Samsung 840 pro with over provisioning seems like a much better choice. Can you explain why these drives were picked for their consistency when your own data seems to be contradictory? Reply
  • Kristian Vättö - Saturday, November 30, 2013 - link

    The SanDisk drive has kind of weird IO consistency as it drops first and then gets better again. After the drop, the IO consistency is amazing for a while, although it does drop again. If you look at our Storage Bench 2013, that's where the Extreme II shines, which is partly thanks to its IO consistency. The Storage Bench results should be more applicable to real life because it consists of both reads and writes as well as multiple IO sizes and queue depths (whereas IO consistency is just 4KB random writes at QD32, i.e. easier to optimize for that). The same applies for the Seagate 600 but I mainly added it for the great deals (240GB for $130).

    There's absolutely nothing wrong with Samsung 840 Pro or Corsair Neutron, they're both great drives. However, I didn't want to add too many drives because it kind of defeats the purpose of an article like this if you still have to make a decision between five drives.
  • alphasquadron - Wednesday, December 04, 2013 - link

    If I could get any SSD drive, I would of course go with Samsung 840 Pro, but it's so dang expensive. I think a good review would have been showing if paying $200 more for the 512gb Pro version from the 500gb Evo version is worth it. I'm went ahead and got the EVO version because I doubt the performance increase will be worth $200(thought I might be wrong) Reply
  • SilthDraeth - Saturday, November 30, 2013 - link

    So, using the Anandtech bench link, and comparing the 840 pro 256 gb to the Sandisk Extreme 2 240gb it looks like a tie. The Sandisk does beat the pro in some areas, however, not substantially, and yet it uses substantially more power.

    Then when comparing it to the Seagate 600, the Samsung appears to be ahead in virtually all areas. Still uses less idle power, and overall power, however the Seagate comes much closer to the Samsung in power draw, compared to the Sandisk.

    You meantion IO consistency, which is fair.

    However, I thought that in general, the performance of an SSD increased with the capacity. It seems I remember reading that. If I am wrong please correct me.

    If the above is true, though, you are comparing a 256gb pro to the 480gb Sandisk, and Seagate.

    Also, the Review, of the Samsung was done back in September 2012, vs, May and June of 2013, for the Sandisk, and the Seagate. Samsung released a firmware June 2013.

    I have no way of knowing wether it improved any io performance consistency of not, short of you guys reviewing it. I would like to know if it does improve, as I have an 840 pro 128gb, and I have been thinking of upgrading to a 256, or larger version.

    Thank you.
  • YouGotRioted - Saturday, November 30, 2013 - link

    Great article! Just purchased the Seagate 600 series 240GB for $140 recently, compared to my other option of the Samsung 840 pro 256GB which was $200+. Can't even compare in terms of value really. Reply
  • psyside1 - Sunday, December 01, 2013 - link

    You guys need to start doing some storage benches (heavy workload) with OP, the only way to know which SSD is the best.

    Also storage benches, heavy workload for me is the most realistic scenario about 100GB of heavy use per days is realistic somewhat, the destroyer is, well not at all.
  • harveyb - Monday, December 02, 2013 - link

    OCZ filed for bankruptcy. Toshiba has an offer on the table to acquire them. If that fails, OCZ disappears from the marketplace. Reply
  • SteelRing - Tuesday, December 03, 2013 - link

    Snagged 240GB Sandisk Extreme II for $150 in ama70n lightning deal cyber monday. This would be the highlight of this year's BF, would've been sweeter if they didn't charge tax like it used to be. Reply
  • blzd - Tuesday, December 03, 2013 - link

    The enthusiast and mainstream level SSDs have practically the same cost per GB. What gives? Reply
  • YouGotRioted - Tuesday, December 03, 2013 - link

    Probably because of recent deals in the enthusiast grade side. The Sandisk Extreme II and the Seagate 600 series have both had insane discounts on Black Friday. Reply
  • HisDivineOrder - Thursday, December 05, 2013 - link

    It amuses me that anyone ever recommended OCZ drives, given the givens. They were always bad. Even your own commentary on the state of OCZ being bought by Toshiba had you acknowledging they skipped QA processes that should have been done... that begs the question, why the hell did you ever recommend them in the first place?
  • ebelin - Thursday, December 05, 2013 - link

    Please add one more section - laptop enthusiast (and to be extra sweet - laptop mainstream). IIRC reviews show battery sap but the metric does not significantly impact recommendation. Makes perfect sense for a bigger rig but what would you recommend to mobile users? Reply
  • iTheGM - Friday, December 06, 2013 - link

    Picked up a Samsung 840 EVO 250GB for $140 over Black Friday weekend. Very pleased.I suspect that SSDs and HDDs will both get cheaper in 2014, which is good news.

    Someone above me mentioned adding a section for laptop friendly SSDs, but I think the prohibitive features there are cost and also physical space. Since your laptop can only support one internal 2.5 drive, your SSD has to be large enough to handle all storage by itself (instead of sharing that responsibility with a high capacity HDD as would be the case in a desktop). That means dropping somewhere between $300 and $400 on a ~500gb SSD. I'm not sure my laptop is still worth that much money by itself. Why pay for a repair that costs more than the value of the car, right?

    Now if more companies get on board with this dual drive business that WD is doing with it's new Black2 drive, and then the obligatory waiting period for new tech premiums wears off, we may be in business. If I can buy a $175 120GB SSD and 500GB HDD 2.5 dual drive - and in so doing make my laptop stay relevant for another year to two years, I'm in. Please WD, take my money. But by that time (or shortly thereafter), we may see laptops being sold stock with such drives.

    And all of that assumes that laptops continue to find a place in the market. Tablet popularity is growing at an astounding rate. For my own right, I don't intend to ever own another laptop. I don't need one professionally and I don't anticipate going back to college, so a tablet is ideal. You could argue that my kids will need one when they start college, but by the time that happens, tablets will include all the productivity elements associated with laptops and my kids will be more comfortable typing on a virtual keyboard than a tactile one (like I'm accustomed to a computer keyboard while my parent's feel at home at a typewriter). Progress, son. You can't stop it. It's all you can do just to keep up.
  • mikato - Sunday, December 08, 2013 - link

    One of the two "Professional and Enthusiast Level" SSDs - the Seagate SSD 600 is about the same price as the SSDs in "Mainstream Level" for the ~256GB capacity. Is that a no brainer then? Reply
  • YouGotRioted - Sunday, December 08, 2013 - link

    Definitely a no brainer if you can still get it for that price. Looks like most specials ended on BF though. Reply
  • msm595 - Wednesday, December 11, 2013 - link

    Any suggestions for M.2 SSDs? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now