Low-End SSDs?

Discussion in 'Storage & Backup' started by DarkYendor, Mar 21, 2017.

  1. DarkYendor

    DarkYendor Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,045
    Location:
    Perth
    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...
     
  2. roger895

    roger895 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    170
    Location:
    Hobart, TAS
    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.
     
  3. OP
    OP
    DarkYendor

    DarkYendor Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,045
    Location:
    Perth
    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.
     
  4. Deano_20802

    Deano_20802 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2009
    Messages:
    286
    Location:
    Tas
    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.
     
  5. terrastrife

    terrastrife Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    18,207
    Location:
    ADL/SA The Monopoly State
    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.
     
  6. Ratzz

    Ratzz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    5,997
    Location:
    Cheltenham East 3192
    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 :lol:
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2017
  7. AgB deano

    AgB deano Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    874
    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.


    Utter bullshit.


    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2017
  8. issa2006

    issa2006 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2006
    Messages:
    3,143
    Location:
    AUSTRALIA (ADL)
    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 )
     
  9. terrastrife

    terrastrife Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    18,207
    Location:
    ADL/SA The Monopoly State
    You know WD own Sandisk and the WD SSDs are Sandisk SSDs with WD stickers on em yeah? :D

    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 :D
    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.
     
  10. Ratzz

    Ratzz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    5,997
    Location:
    Cheltenham East 3192
    Sure, probably :lol: 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.. :lol: 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.
     
  11. AgB deano

    AgB deano Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    874
    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
     
  12. BuuBox

    BuuBox Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    8,894
    Location:
    Melbourne
    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... :Paranoid:
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2017
  13. wwwww

    wwwww Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,437
    Location:
    Melbourne
    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.
     
  14. terrastrife

    terrastrife Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    18,207
    Location:
    ADL/SA The Monopoly State
    Depends on what he benched, the WDs are Sandisk X400, the good old SandForce based Sandisk Extremes are still faster.

    Did you test that? The Intel 600p are around 150-200MB/sec, and the Samsung 850 Evos are around 70-80MB/sec
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2017
  15. mr_mordred2095

    mr_mordred2095 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,891
    Location:
    Brisbane
    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+
     
  16. BuuBox

    BuuBox Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    8,894
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Sequential read/write tested using AS SSD set to a 10gb file.
     
  17. bcann

    bcann Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2006
    Messages:
    4,465
    Location:
    NSW
    from memory the low end ssd's don't have a front end ram chip for cache. so for an everday machine for a pleb, probably not so big a deal, the IOPS are perceptible better then spinning rust so its a win for a normal jo. But for us folk, it is perceptible.

    Having said that i run the exact same model sandisk ssd plus 240GB, in this POS work HP laptop, and compared to the shitty 5400rpm spinning rust its night and day. having said that there is a reason why my home box has a samsung 960 pro m.2 in it :)
     
  18. OP
    OP
    DarkYendor

    DarkYendor Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,045
    Location:
    Perth
    Hi All,

    Got the Sandisk SSD Plus in the end, I figured I'd try it out.

    On a 32-bit machine with 4GB of RAM and integrated graphics, the SSD scores the best figure in the "Windows Experience Index". Not exactly the best metric in the world, but I figure there's not a huge deal to be gained by paying twice as much for a faster drive:

    Click to view full size!
     

Share This Page