First SSD

[Black64]

I just got some extra cash saved up for an upgrade and I am looking into a SSD boot drive. I have a few questions thou

 

1.is the failure rate high (or higher then a HDD? It seems that way ) I am a little scared about it just failing on me.

 

2. Is there tweaks that must be done to get most of the speed from the SSD?

 

3.How much harder or inconvenient is it to use a SSD over a HDD?

 

4. which one should I buy? Which brand? I need 60-120GB and under $200.

 

Thanks for your help guys!

Edited September 4, 2011 by Black6464

[El_Capitan]

1.is the failure rate high (or higher then a HDD? It seems that way ) I am a little scared about it just failing on me.

No. Here's a list of SSD's I've used (some two years old), and none so far have gone bad:

2 Crucial RealSSD C300 128GB

3 Corsair P128

3 Kingston SSDNow 96GB V+100

1 Kingston SSDNow 64GB V+

1 Patriot Pyro 120GB

1 Mushkin Enhanced Callisto 240GB

1 Intel X25-M 160GB

1 OCZ Vertex 2 120GB

1 Super Talent UltraDrive GX64GB

 

However, I've had Seagate Barracuda's and WD Caviar Green's go bad on me.

 

2. Is there tweaks that must be done to get most of the speed from the SSD?

Kind of. Mostly the firmware will determine that. However, you can always enable ACHI mode instead of IDE, disable defragmentation on them, disable file indexing, and depending on your system, disable sleep/hibernation mode.

 

3.How much harder or inconvenient is it to use a SSD over a HDD?

Not any harder at all.

 

4. which one should I buy? Which brand? I need 60-120GB and under $200.

That's all up to you. There's the budget SSD's where they're good for the average consumer. Then there's ones for photo/video, web servers/databases, etc. Depends on what you want to utilize the extra speed for.

[RHKCommander959]

El Capitan summed it up pretty good

1.is the failure rate high (or higher then a HDD? It seems that way

 

There were some issues early on but newer versions seem reliable. Just check before making a purchase

 

2. Is there tweaks that must be done to get most of the speed from the SSD?

Nothing that MUST be done. AHCI should be used. Don't defrag a SSD though or you put it through extra work and it is useless since it can access any part of the drive in the same amount of time

 

3.How much harder or inconvenient is it to use a SSD over a HDD?

Easier, except you might need to buy a 2.5" to 3.5" adapter to mount the SSD in a HDD slot. Also might be problematic with older hd bays and so forth. Otherwise they are similar. SSD isn't super shock sensitivte like a HDD either. Almost no latency too. Only downfall is size/price

[Black64]

"There were some issues early on but newer versions seem reliable. Just check before making a purchase"

 

How would I check?

[Waco]

How would I check?

If it's a SATA 3 drive you don't need to look any further. There's no need to buy a SATA 2 SSD today unless it's a crazy deal. Nearly all of the SATA 3 Sandforce drives beat the pants off of my Indilinx RAID 0 setup with a lot lower probability of failure.

[broooooooce]

I'd check the read/write speed on them. I dunno how things are lately, but back in December/January, there were drives ranging from under 100 MB/s up to 330 MB/s or so if I recall correctly. I'd look for something with at least 275 read AND write, but my advice may be a bit dated (someone please correct me if this is the case). Just watch out, you don't want to think "oh wow, what a great deal!" only to find out you have a new SSD that writes at 75 MB/s instead of 250+

[Waco]

I'd check the read/write speed on them. I dunno how things are lately, but back in December/January, there were drives ranging from under 100 MB/s up to 330 MB/s or so if I recall correctly. I'd look for something with at least 275 read AND write, but my advice may be a bit dated (someone please correct me if this is the case). Just watch out, you don't want to think "oh wow, what a great deal!" only to find out you have a new SSD that writes at 75 MB/s instead of 250+

The stats really don't mean shiite. The sustained read and write rates for most drives these days are pretty exaggerated (especially when dealing with incompressible data). Your best bet is to go with a newer drive that uses synchronous flash versus the older asynchronous flash (IE: the Vertex 3 over the Agility 3).

[N.E.A]

To get the best value I recommend my SSD Adata S599 64GB the only thing that may bother you is its Sata II 3.0GB/sec. To me its not a big deal. There is also a 128GB as well. But the Usable capacity for that one is 111.79 !! Adata 120GB review

That was my experience with SSDs. I do not know how the Prices are going these days but it is possible to get an SSD with a close cost to those Adata SSDs with better performance.

[IVIYTH0S]

Everything else that has been said, and also that I recommend getting atleast a 120GB for an OS drive of a desktop

[Black64]

Everything else that has been said, and also that I recommend getting atleast a 120GB for an OS drive of a desktop

 

I know, I use a 100GB partition for my OS right now, but only 80GB is used. So I think I could get away with a 64GB drive.

 

Thanks for the info from everyone that posted.

 

OK, so I need to get a SATA 3, with greater then or equal to 250MB writes and reads. Got it.

[El_Capitan]

Just get a Kingston SSDNow 96GB V+100 (SATA 2). I got mine for $89.00 after MIR (and Kingston is good with their rebates). You really won't notice too much of a difference in performance in everyday use besides benchmarks, and if you're not using the SSD for anything specific.

[Black64]

Just get a Kingston SSDNow 96GB V+100 (SATA 2). I got mine for $89.00 after MIR (and Kingston is good with their rebates). You really won't notice too much of a difference in performance in everyday use besides benchmarks, and if you're not using the SSD for anything specific.

 

Well thats why I want an SSD, is to have a noticeable difference in performance in everyday use.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Black6464