Notebook disk replacement dilemma

[rtwjunkie]

Except the 850's ARE god's gift to SSD. Nothing outperforms it to date.

Not according to W1zzard. That would be the Crucial MX-200 which he dubbed as the fastest drive he has ever tested.

 

[AsRock]

It is a well known problem with the NAND Cell Charge decay and their TLC flash. They put out a firmware fix that helped, but since the problem is related to decaying NAND flash, the firmware upgrade only serves to slow the problem down. W1z has even talked about it in the past, and is why he stopped recommending Samsung drives.

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...a-reliable-brand-for-ssd.217724/#post-3375141

Known issue or not still don't have it lol. I remember the 840's having some issue's but never seen it on my 850.

Not according to W1zzard. That would be the Crucial MX-200 which he dubbed as the fastest drive he has ever tested.

Very misleading as he has not done a review on the Samsung 850.

Not as you would probably notice any difference in the real world anyways.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Very misleading as he has not done a review on the Samsung 850.

True enough, but as it stands now, his statement is true. He didn't say anything like "fastest drive ever."

But in reality, as you said, no one will notice the milliseconds of differences between them.

 

[taz420nj]

Not according to W1zzard. That would be the Crucial MX-200 which he dubbed as the fastest drive he has ever tested.

Considering the independent benchmarks show the MX200 to be 25% slower across the board, I'd love to know how he gets that.. That drive (which is TLC based) isn't on a single recommended list either.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Considering the independent benchmarks show the MX200 to be 25% slower across the board, I'd love to know how he gets that.. That drive (which is TLC based) isn't on a single recommended list either.

Read his review. 'Nuff said.

And then take your learned argument to him, and not me.

 

[taz420nj]

I'm not arguing, I was just saying. How can someone claim a particular drive is the fastest when they refuse to test the actual fastest drive on the market due to brand scorn? that's like saying a McLaren F1 is the fastest production car because they don't like Bugatti.

 

[newtekie1]

Considering the independent benchmarks show the MX200 to be 25% slower across the board, I'd love to know how he gets that.. That drive (which is TLC based) isn't on a single recommended list either.

I'd like to see what review puts the MX200 25% slower across the board.

Except the 850's ARE god's gift to SSD. Nothing outperforms it to date.

Except its not. Most of the SATA SSDs on the market are hitting the SATA limit. So in real world use the 850's aren't noticeably better than the competition.

Plus, if the company isn't willing to stand behind the product when there is a problem with it, then the product is no good in my eyes. Samsung is worse than the old OCZ(at least OCZ RMA'd and replaced the drives that failed).

 

[rtwjunkie]

I am not him, so I can only surmise that he hasn't gotten to it yet.

In any case, his statement is completely factual, because it is based on what he has tested to that point.

Look at it this way, since you want to use cars. Maybe you test a mclaren out, and declare it the fastest car you've driven. There is nothing wrong with that statement.

Maybe you know you will be testing a bugatti in 6 months, but just because it reportedly is faster doesn't make it so in your book until it is tested by you, to your standards which you apply exactingly to every car. It has to prove it's faster to change your statement which is based on firsthand experience and testing. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

 

[AsRock]

Not according to W1zzard. That would be the Crucial MX-200 which he dubbed as the fastest drive he has ever tested.

I'd like to see what review puts the MX200 25% slower across the board.



Except its not. Most of the SATA SSDs on the market are hitting the SATA limit. So in real world use the 850's aren't noticeably better than the competition.

Plus, if the company isn't willing to stand behind the product when there is a problem with it, then the product is no good in my eyes. Samsung is worse than the old OCZ(at least OCZ RMA'd and replaced the drives that failed).

HA! yeah mine went poof just after they went bust fat lot of good that warranty did for me.

 

[Mussels]

just jumping in to say... why not an SSHD? you can get them a lot cheaper than a pure SSD, and they're a lot faster than traditional drives.

 

[taz420nj]

I'd like to see what review puts the MX200 25% slower across the board.

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-850-Pro-256GB-vs-Crucial-MX200-250GB/2385vs3196

 

[newtekie1]

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-850-Pro-256GB-vs-Crucial-MX200-250GB/2385vs3196

Interesting, still not noticeable differences though.

 

[taz420nj]

But they're measurable, and 25% is not an insignificant number.

 

[AsRock]

That's the pro version

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-850-Evo-250GB-vs-Crucial-MX200-250GB/2977vs3196

 

[rtwjunkie]

Interesting, still not noticeable differences though.

Ahhh, user benches, all with different systems and no controlled environment testing. This is why we have controlled setting reviews always done on the same components to set standards.

 

[taz420nj]

Ahhh, user benches, all with different systwms and no controlled environment testing. This is why we have controlled setting reviews always done on the same components to set standards.

...Which in no way gives you a real-world picture, just like your car never gets the EPA mileage on the sticker because that is computed based on completely unrealistic driving conditions in a lab.. An aggregate score from thousands of users on their actual computers gives you a much better picture of what to expect in real life.

 

[xvi]

Don't forget latency. Access times for SSDs do vary between models and it's that latency that greatly assists with general "snappiness".

As far as "fastest ever", I believe the Samsung 950 Pro holds that crown now (at least for mass produced in M.2 or 2.5" form factor, aka things that are likely to fit in a laptop). If you're using a SATA port though, current generation SSDs are going to start pushing the limits of what those can do. I'd just find something well reviewed for a decent price.

If you need storage on the cheap, I'd consider this popular deal on a Crucial BX100 500GB drive at Amazon for $120.

 

[rtwjunkie]

...Which in no way gives you a real-world picture, just like your car never gets the EPA mileage on the sticker because that is computed based on completely unrealistic driving conditions in a lab.. An aggregate score from thousands of users on their actual computers gives you a much better picture of what to expect in real life.

Whew! I can rest easier now and make sure I ignore all the reviews that are done on SSD's, motherboards, GPU's and coolers here on TPU. At last I will not feel stressed to try and read them because they mean nothing.

Thank you.

 

[taz420nj]

Whew! I can rest easier now and make sure I ignore all the reviews that are done on SSD's, motherboards, GPU's and coolers here on TPU. At last I will not feel stressed to try and read them because they mean nothing.

Thank you.

Wow. Okay.. So how about this not so flattering review of the MX200 by anandtech that basically mirrors the user benches? Pay particular attention to their graphs of how it stacks up (or more accurately DOESN'T stack up) to the 850. And get a load of the results when the 250GB unit gets full and the SLC "accelerator" cache bogs down - you can't miss them on the graphs.....

 

[RCoon]

Does he NEED 250GB

I tend not to recommend anything less for domestic users

100GB just for Windows

My Steam streamer has Windows 64bit plus basic software and all updates and comes in just under 50GB. That said, I personally recommend 250GB minimum.

And capacity has absolutely nothing to do with speed in an SSD

Kinda does mate. On 120GB drives the IOPS are always worse, and they're arguably the most important measure.

I am tired of everybody saying Samsung is the only one.

+1. There are dozens of exceptionally capable ranges of SSDs available

The 850's use different NAND and don't have that problem

Yet

25% slower across the board

And by across the board you mean overall against a single other SSD? That's not across the board.

But they're measurable, and 25% is not an insignificant number.

You're comparing a PRO drive, significantly more expensive than the suggested drive, in a thread where OP says he's not financially free to splash cash.

for the mentally challenged

Not a wise choice of words, might I add.

Except the 850's ARE god's gift to SSD. Nothing outperforms it to date.

Except NVMe drives, if we're going to start comparing totally different classes of products to one another both financially and technologically. Why not go full frontal and start comparing apples to papayas.

why not an SSHD?

I think this is the only post that actually responds to the OP's question and needs.

 

[taz420nj]

I tend not to recommend anything less for domestic users

My Steam streamer has Windows 64bit plus basic software and all updates and comes in just under 50GB. That said, I personally recommend 250GB minimum.

For someone's web and email machine, 120GB is plenty. And you have 30GB worth of "basic software"?

Yet

With the amount of time the 850 has been on the market, IF a problem exists it is not on any scale comparable with the 840.

And by across the board you mean overall against a single other SSD? That's not across the board.

No, I meant in every category head to head against that other drive.

You're comparing a PRO drive, significantly more expensive than the suggested drive, in a thread where OP says he's not financially free to splash cash.

I was not addressing the OP. The OP in all his glorious ignorance dismissed my opinions because I called out his BS. I was addressing someone else.

Not a wise choice of words, might I add.

LOL.

Except NVMe drives, if we're going to start comparing totally different classes of products to one another both financially and technologically. Why not go full frontal and start comparing apples to papayas.

LOL again.

I think this is the only post that actually responds to the OP's question and needs.

The OP doesn't need help, he seems to know everything already.

 

[RCoon]

The OP doesn't need help, he seems to know everything already.

Then perhaps you have no reason to be in this thread.

 

[taz420nj]

LOL perhaps I am conversing with others.

 

[Tatty_Two]

This thread is fast turning into a chat room, discussions about SSD comparisons can either be conducted in review threads or in PM, please stay on topic or don't stay at all..... thank you.

 

[silentbogo]

Here we go again, an advice thread turned holywar for no reason.

I'll come back to the main topic, since everyone is too busy banging heads:

1) Any decent mechanical HDD in a 250-500GB range will cost you around $40-50
2) A mediocre SSD in 240-256GB range costs about $10 more.
3) 250GB 850 EVO is almost $80

I am not sure if your dad will notice a significant change in performance between EVO and, let's say SanDisk SSD Plus or ADATA Premier, so why bother with the best performance if an affordable choice is right there.
I own an older SanDisk Extreme II, which has almost identical specs to a much cheaper SSD Plus and even though my write speeds are way below spec, I am still quite happy with its performance and reliability.
Originally I bought this SSD for my ASUS R500V laptop and it was enough for work/games and other stuff. Even had a 40GB partition for OpenSuse.