Or if you can find a Intel 600p M.2. , they are more affordable (at least in my country) than other brands.
I have checked that one but it was $80 locally. I'm from the Philippines by the way. I got $54 SRP of that M.2 when I asked BIOSTAR FB fan page.
If ever the price would go near that Intel 600p then I might consider getting the latter.
It has nothing to do with Toshiba-owned OCZ now. I had really bad memroes of OCZ of the old. Got traumatized badly that I just ignore anything-OCZ entirely like an oil soaked boy avoiding fire.
Arc 100 im using right now has a solid build compared to the galax and adata i once had.
Yeah, go for the Intel 600p, it's at least an NVMe drive, even though it's "slow" by NVMe drive standards it's much faster than all SATA based M.2 drives. Yes, it'll cost $10 more (at least according to Newegg pricing), but it's a vastly superior drive in most things compared to similarly priced SATA drives. Unfortunately there are no reviews of the 128GB version, so this will have to do
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10850/the-intel-ssd-600p-512gb-review/
Also keep in mind that Biostar doesn't make that SSD, it's something they've sourced and branded, so don't expect good support, whereas Intel has been making SSDs for years now.
Thanks for the link. Yes if the price of the Biostar would get close to that of Intel I would consider getting the latter.
I agree with getting a 2.5" drive, but only to say one thing: unless you're specifically looking for an NVMe drive, it doesn't make much sense to get an M.2 SSD. It's cheaper to get a 2.5" drive, and it will perform the same as any other SATA based M.2 drive. Only when buying an NVMe capable SSD will you see a true benefit.
Also, I disagree about NVMe drives. I noticed quite a speed boost when just booting Windows when I swapped from my OCZ 512GB drive (capable of saturating SATA bus) to my 960 EVO 1TB drive. Everything else seems to be quite a bit quicker on the NVMe drive. Being 5x-6x quicker on the reads though certainly helps with that.
The price of that Biostar SSD is close to that of 2.5 drives. A Sandisk SSD Plus 120gb costs around $50. I guess it isn't that bad that for $4 youd get additional space, less cables, better airflow.
You guys are forgetting one large benefit of M.2.
In small, SFF, builds, M.2 is a God-send. No cables (2 less) and hardly takes up any space.
OP is building ITX rig, no?
Yes I am. A Pentium G4560, a B250 ITX and GTX 1050Ti in a Sugo 13 case.
I have an M.2 SSD, Crucial MX300 275GB. On the plus side you save some space and get rid of some cable connections, on the minus side you lose some PCI lanes and in my case I am not able to use all the SATA connections on the motherboard anymore...not that I need to.
Performance wise, there is some gain but not really noticeable so in the end you know better what you need.
I bought this SSD on ebay for 62£ so I think it was a good deal.
In my case, I am building an ITX rig and I guess it is important I could get rid of those cables. Your lucky you got yours at that price.
Note that the M.2 you picked, and most cheap M.2 drives, is still SATA 3 based. So you won't get any better performance from it over a standard 2.5" SSD. But you will get the space savings, but in my experience all mITX cases worth putting a performance computer in have space for at least one 2.5" SSD.
Yes I'm not expecting any added performance from a 2.5 SSD. I would like to use one benefit of having a storage that you could just install directly on the board and
I could actually remove any ssd/hdd bay.
I would say unless space is at an absolute premium (not sure if it will or will not be in his case) stick with a standard 2.5" SSD. Cheaper that way too usually.
Space and price is actually my reason for considering it to ditch the faster yet more expensive nvme's.
^This, and only 120gb might as well get regular ssd with 250gb prolly around same price.
The most cheapest 2.5 SSD's I could find here are Galax Gamer, Kingston UV400 and Sandisk Plus. All are in 120Gb variant valued at $50.
