Overclockers Australia Forums

OCAU News - Wiki - QuickLinks - Pix - Sponsors  

Go Back   Overclockers Australia Forums > Specific Hardware Topics > Storage & Backup

Notices


Sign up for a free OCAU account and this ad will go away!
Search our forums with Google:
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 21st March 2017, 12:36 PM   #1
DarkYendor Thread Starter
Member
 
DarkYendor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Perth
Posts: 2,955
Default Low-End SSDs?

Hi All,

I have a friend with a small business who's score a few second hand machines to replacing their ancient Pentiums/Core2/XP machines with i5's/Win7, and they've given them to me to install windows etc... I wanted to swap out the mechanical drives with just basic (and reliable) 120GB SSDs, but I don't have much experience with the low-end drives, and there aren't even many reviews to compare them.

The two main contenders seem to be:

Sandisk SSD Plus - $65
WD Green PC 120GB SSD - $69


Can anyone give any feedback on how good these two drives are? Leaning toward the Sandisk as UserBenchmark rates it higher, but then some websites say the WD Green is just a rebadged Sandisk Plus anyway, so performance should be the same?

Anyway, any help would be appreciated...
__________________
RIG: |i5 2500k @4.5 | Asus P8P67 Pro | 2x GTX460 SLI | 8GB DDR3-1600 | 2x 256GB SSD | 2x Dell U2311H |
C&C: | LianLi PC-A71B | Swiftech MCP655 | Swiftech MCR320-QP, MCR240-QP | Heatkiller 3.0 |
SERVER: | i3 3220 | 8GB DDR3 | 16TB + SSD | - BACKUP SERVER: | Intel D945GCLF2 | 1GB DDR2 | 8TB |
Successful OCAU trades
DarkYendor is offline   Reply With Quote

Join OCAU to remove this ad!
Old 21st March 2017, 12:45 PM   #2
roger895
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hobart, TAS
Posts: 164
Default

Performance between the 2 would be negligible compared to a spinning disk.

Just get the cheapest, get some spares, and try and prevent the users from storing important data on it. easy.
roger895 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2017, 6:03 PM   #3
DarkYendor Thread Starter
Member
 
DarkYendor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Perth
Posts: 2,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roger895 View Post
Performance between the 2 would be negligible compared to a spinning disk.

Just get the cheapest, get some spares, and try and prevent the users from storing important data on it. easy.
I wouldn't expect much of a difference, but the reviews I liked above showed some pretty big differences in write speeds.

Their current backup system is an external HDD that sits on the desk and has files manually copied onto it, so I was going to get them on crashplan for $165/year.
__________________
RIG: |i5 2500k @4.5 | Asus P8P67 Pro | 2x GTX460 SLI | 8GB DDR3-1600 | 2x 256GB SSD | 2x Dell U2311H |
C&C: | LianLi PC-A71B | Swiftech MCP655 | Swiftech MCR320-QP, MCR240-QP | Heatkiller 3.0 |
SERVER: | i3 3220 | 8GB DDR3 | 16TB + SSD | - BACKUP SERVER: | Intel D945GCLF2 | 1GB DDR2 | 8TB |
Successful OCAU trades
DarkYendor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2017, 12:27 AM   #4
Deano_20802
Member
 
Deano_20802's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tas
Posts: 42
Default

In a small business even a few extra dollars multiplied over a several PC's can hurt, but what is the intended purpose?

I have no recent experience with low end SSD's and can't directly answer your question based on that.

Generally, I'd suggest spending the extra dollars for the reliability that a quality (not necessarily fast) SSD would offer. It's certainly cheaper than down time or ongoing IT support.
Deano_20802 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2017, 10:07 PM   #5
terrastrife
Member
 
terrastrife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ADL/SA The Monopoly State
Posts: 17,994
Default

Low end SSDs feel like Intel X25-Ms, that's the best way to describe them. Something like an 850 EVO is in another league.
All the cheap SSDs I have around pretty much "feel" the same, all just generally more sluggish than my 850 EVO.
terrastrife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2017, 10:39 PM   #6
Ratzz
Member
 
Ratzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Cheltenham East 3192
Posts: 4,849
Default

Cheapo's are cheap because they all use similar, cheap, technology. There are no frills, just the basic minimum, but they do the job pretty well. Sandisk is a name I would trust more than WD, but that's just my own bias and shouldn't affect your decision.

I'd just pick the prettiest one. Your friend won't be able to tell the difference between them performance or reliability wise, especially moving up from very old gear. He might notice that one looks nicer than the other though
__________________
I always say 'morning' rather than 'good morning'. If it was a 'good' morning then I would be on a yacht in the West Indies smoking a 10" reefer and getting a massage from Lexa Doig...

My Rig

Last edited by Ratzz; 26th March 2017 at 10:45 PM.
Ratzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2017, 11:09 PM   #7
AgB deano
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 842
Default

OP, the sandisk unit is currently the best budget unit you can buy of all the main brands. The others are probably rebadged but will be lower binned.

Should you buy them? No. Not for a business environment anyway, it's not worth the potential hassle. Hunt down the 120gb 850 evo units instead. Much better performance and arguably better reliability.

Also, that site data will be skewed. Budget ssds will be benched on budgets pcs, possibly with old sata controllers which will hit the raw transfer speeds, so go by the 4k read/write and IO speeds instead.


Quote:
Originally Posted by roger895 View Post
Performance between the 2 would be negligible compared to a spinning disk.
Utter bullshit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by terrastrife View Post
Low end SSDs feel like Intel X25-Ms, that's the best way to describe them. Something like an 850 EVO is in another league.
All the cheap SSDs I have around pretty much "feel" the same, all just generally more sluggish than my 850 EVO.
Thankfully, benchmarks are more objective rather than subjective.. especially when considering that the x25 was a gold plated turd and you're comparing budget drives to a prosumer device.

That said, as I stated above, I 100% agree that the 850 evo is an incredible sdd for the pittance you pay. I've got a few 840's and love 'em.
__________________
aka "Deano_au"

Last edited by AgB deano; 26th March 2017 at 11:30 PM.
AgB deano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2017, 11:28 PM   #8
issa2006
Member
 
issa2006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: AUSTRALIA (ADL)
Posts: 3,127
Default

backup data , ssd give no warning when they fail.

on that note iv had several cheap ssd fail over 3 years.

but non on intel or samsung /evo/pro ones. 5+ years nearly 6

but i did set up windows 7 to optimize the ssd writes (fine tune )
__________________
2700k+Fatal1ty Z68 Professional Gen3/i-ram 4g -32g ddr3 1600/2xssd in raid 0(sam 120g M-830)+ hdds+sound card+g19/g9x etc....27" 120 +3d samsung +7" touch screen etc...(gig oc 670 x2 sli)1250psu evermax+water cooling (oc4.8)ghz etc-win7 64bit +eboostr+supercache 5(3600+mb/sec hdd access)
issa2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th March 2017, 12:38 AM   #9
terrastrife
Member
 
terrastrife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ADL/SA The Monopoly State
Posts: 17,994
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratzz View Post
Cheapo's are cheap because they all use similar, cheap, technology. There are no frills, just the basic minimum, but they do the job pretty well. Sandisk is a name I would trust more than WD, but that's just my own bias and shouldn't affect your decision.
You know WD own Sandisk and the WD SSDs are Sandisk SSDs with WD stickers on em yeah?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AgB deano View Post
Thankfully, benchmarks are more objective rather than subjective.. especially when considering that the x25 was a gold plated turd and you're comparing budget drives to a prosumer device.
The problem with benchmarks is that there really isn't much to go on if your usage pattern isn't identical to what is tested. These days it really comes down to picking the disk with the lowest latency, and ignoring actual tested speeds
Entry level SSDs can saturate the SATA3 bus but will still be slower than an older high end drive that is only half the sequential performance.
terrastrife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th March 2017, 1:19 AM   #10
Ratzz
Member
 
Ratzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Cheltenham East 3192
Posts: 4,849
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by terrastrife View Post
You know WD own Sandisk and the WD SSDs are Sandisk SSDs with WD stickers on em yeah?
Sure, probably Toyota own Lexus, and a lot of Lexus are just Toyota's with Lexus stickers on them.. just a bit more attention to detail that's all.

I'm not saying you aren't completely correct. Fuck, half the electronics in the world comes down to a handful of companies in the end. I've just had bad experiences with WD and it affects my judgement.. Put the Sandisk sticker over top of the WD one and Ill feel a lot better anyway

Although he did say the Sandisk does bench better, so no saying if they are in fact identical drives either. Just the under the same company umbrella, that's all.

Personally I'd spend the extra bux for a Samsung, but that's not the level he wants to shop at.
__________________
I always say 'morning' rather than 'good morning'. If it was a 'good' morning then I would be on a yacht in the West Indies smoking a 10" reefer and getting a massage from Lexa Doig...

My Rig
Ratzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th March 2017, 9:20 AM   #11
AgB deano
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by terrastrife View Post
You know WD own Sandisk and the WD SSDs are Sandisk SSDs with WD stickers on em yeah?

picking the disk with the lowest latency
That sounds about right. I know that samsung sells their conrollers and memory to other companies as well but tends to put higher binned gear in their own products.

lower latency = higher 4k read/write and IO, which all decent benchmarks have
__________________
aka "Deano_au"
AgB deano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th March 2017, 11:17 AM   #12
BuuBox
Member
 
BuuBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 8,664
Default

Upgraded two older C2Q machines recently, with low end SSDs.

SATA2 only, so even a crappy TLC drive will nearly saturate the link.

Used a Kingston UV400 and a Sandisk Plus. Both 240GB versions. Both felt the same, the UV400 benched slightly better. Physically the Sandisk feels better made, for what it's worth.

In reality they are 150MB/s drives once the cache is filled, but the system was transformed compared to a WD 150GB Raptor.

TLDR; buy whatever is cheaper... I would spend the extra $30 on a 240GB drive though, for more over-provisioning if nothing else.

Edit: That said, for my data, I trust only higher end MLC drives...
__________________
Desktop: Gigabyte GA-990FX-Gaming, AMD FX-8350, 16GB DDR3, Sapphire Radeon R9 290, Plextor M6e 256GB M.2 SSD, 2TB WD Black, EVGA 850W, Kogan 27"
Blast from the past: Shuttle HOT-591P, Cyrix MII-400GP, 64MB PC133, Voodoo Banshee, 16GB SSD, Creative Sound Blaster AWE64
Trades: Too many to list. Hundreds.

Last edited by BuuBox; 27th March 2017 at 12:04 PM.
BuuBox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th March 2017, 12:24 PM   #13
wwwww
Member
 
wwwww's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,153
Default

How important is reliability? Are they attached to a UPS? If so go for one of the newer TLC drives like the Samsung EVO. These make up for their poor writes with lots of cache but you need to have it active for good performance (which can lead to data loss from sudden power loss). For a basic desktop they work great.
__________________
wPrime 2.10 | Super PI 1.9

Quote:
Originally Posted by NSanity View Post
This is literally the worst advice on the internet, ever.
wwwww is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th March 2017, 10:36 PM   #14
terrastrife
Member
 
terrastrife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ADL/SA The Monopoly State
Posts: 17,994
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratzz View Post
Although he did say the Sandisk does bench better, so no saying if they are in fact identical drives either. Just the under the same company umbrella, that's all
Depends on what he benched, the WDs are Sandisk X400, the good old SandForce based Sandisk Extremes are still faster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuuBox View Post
In reality they are 150MB/s drives once the cache is filled, but the system was transformed compared to a WD 150GB Raptor. Paranoid:
Did you test that? The Intel 600p are around 150-200MB/sec, and the Samsung 850 Evos are around 70-80MB/sec

Last edited by terrastrife; 27th March 2017 at 10:39 PM.
terrastrife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th March 2017, 8:03 AM   #15
mr_mordred2095
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 3,811
Default

I install low end SSDs into machines every day. Avoid OCZ and Patriot, apart from that, I've had 2 kingstons fail out of 200+ over 2 years. 1 Transcend out of about 15, 1 sandisk out of 150+
mr_mordred2095 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Sign up for a free OCAU account and this ad will go away!

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 12:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
OCAU is not responsible for the content of individual messages posted by others.
Other content copyright Overclockers Australia.
OCAU is hosted by Micron21!