Final Words

The more SM2246EN based SSDs I review, the more I'm convinced that Silicon Motion is becoming a very serious player in the controller market. Despite the use of 16nm NAND, the Reactor is an excellent performer and it also proves that the SM2246EN can handle 1TB of NAND without a hitch (whereas some controllers struggle with high capacities). The power efficiency is also great thanks to slumber power support, making the Reactor a viable option for laptops as well (which was a concern I had with the Transcend SSD370 that we reviewed last week).

My biggest criticism is the fact that Mushkin doesn't offer any lower capacities. In the end, a 1TB SSD will still set you back by over $350, which is why the majority of people are more interested in 128-512GB SSDs. As I mentioned on the introduction page, I suspect this has to do with the limited availability of Micron's 16nm NAND, but once the supply gets better Mushkin should have no problems bringing additional capacities to the market. On the other hand, the 1TB-class SSD market certainly needs more players because there aren't that many models available and only a couple that are value-oriented, so I'm also happy to see that Mushin chose a segment that isn't too crowded yet.

Furthermore, the lack of hardware encryption (TCG Opal 2.0 & eDrive) and software toolbox are also notable shortcomings, but neither of these is critical. Hardware encryption isn't very widely used among consumers due to the lack of freeware software and education, so especially for a value drive like the Reactor it's not a very big deal. As for the toolbox, I would certainly like to see one as it offers the end-user an easy way to monitor the drive, but most of the toolbox functionality can be replaced by freeware software if needed.

Amazon Price Comparison (2/9/2015)
  960GB/1TB
Mushkin Reactor $390
Transcend SSD370 $400
Samsung SSD 850 EVO  $390
Samsung SSD 850 Pro $610
SanDisk Extreme Pro $479
SanDisk Ultra II $390

The pricing of the Reactor is very competitive. It's among the cheapest 1TB-class SSDs around, although right now there are two other SSDs (850 EVO & Ultra II) that are priced exactly the same. Out of these three, the 850 EVO would be my number one pick because it's the fastest and has by far the most extensive feature set, but in the past it has been retailing for around $450. I'm not sure whether the current price is due to a sale or if it's a permanent change, but in any case it's the best 1TB SSD deal around at the moment. That said, if the price of the 850 EVO goes up to $450 again, the Reactor will become a better choice because despite the performance and features I don't find the 850 EVO to be worth $60 more.

Either way, the Reactor is without a doubt one of the best value 1TB SSDs around and deserves a recommendation from us. Its performance is good regardless of how intensive the workload is and the performance doesn't come at the cost of power efficiency. To be frank, if I was on a lookout for an affordable 1TB SSD, the Reactor would be one of the first drives I would look at.

Power Consumption
Comments Locked

69 Comments

View All Comments

  • Hulk - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link

    When it's written as 131GB writes/day for 3 years it seems like more than enough.
    But cell endurance of 144 writes seems really, really low.
  • hojnikb - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link

    It doesnt work like that. 144TB for 1TB doesn't translate to 144 p/e flash. You have to factor in write amplification, which can be more than 1 on controller like this.
    Also conservative rating is nothing new with budget driver.
  • cm2187 - Friday, February 13, 2015 - link

    Stupid question: has anyone any experience with SSD reliability over time. I.e. is it reliable to store static data 3-5y+? Or does the 3y (or 5y) guarantee also means the data should be migrated out after that period even if the number of writes has been low?
  • hojnikb - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link

    Its just a conservative rating for warranty purposes. Besides, other value drives are no better at this (evo is only "good" for 150TB).

    In reality, drives typically last many times the rated endurance.
  • DanNeely - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link

    More importantly, it's set low to scare off enterprise customers who'd subject the drive to an order of magnitude more IO.
  • toyotabedzrock - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link

    So if the endurance is 144TB on a 1TB drive, they are predicting the nand can only take 144 writes?

    That is a bit scary for even home use. I wouldn't trust my data to that.
  • zepi - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link

    There is not a single medium or drive out there that you should trust your data on. Only thing you can trust is redundancy.
  • hojnikb - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link

    No. Read my post above ^^
  • TheinsanegamerN - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link

    the 512GB crusial mx 100 endurance is only 72TB, yet people dont seem to be complaining. besides, as typical day to day use only accounts for maybe ~10GB or writes(3.65TB a year), the 144TB endurance will last far longer than the machine it is put in.
  • Murloc - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link

    yeah problem is that until it's broken, I'll keep moving it on to the next machine.
    But I write about 1 GB/week to the SSD so I should be safe, unless windows does a lot of that in the background, I don't know, I just deactivated all the bad stuff I read about.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now