What about the Intel 310 160GB? It is about the price of the Vertex 3.

1 in 34 SSDs vs 1 in 169 SSDs. Heh.

Oh, I had thought you were just over-simplifying, and not because you hadn't realised it.

I am doubtful that most would realise the difference, particularly after we get use to the new performance level. You need edge cases to show off the performance of a Vertex 3. For example, copying 1GB of data?



Three or four seconds on a Vertex 3 and five seconds on an Intel 320. What can you do with the one or two seconds that a Vertex 3 saved you? You would need to work with dozens of GB of data sets per task on most days to fall in love with a Vertex 3 and snub an Intel 320 for its "lame" performance.

If your computing needs are not extraordinary and you prefer not to spend so much, a decent entry level SSD will be more than enough.

This post has been edited by everling: May 30 2011, 06:14 PM

I second that motion. What is your source?

As for your question, my Kingston V Series 128GB was RM899 when I bought it in April 2010.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/0...-sleep-mode.ars

That 400GB PCI-E SSD will be more expensive than an Intel 320 600GB SSD.

Considering that it is using the same SandForce controller and similar firmware as the Vertex 3, it is really not that amazing.

The 80GB is better for it can store more stuff.

What problem are you going to use it to solve? A server database?

You get diminished performance returns.



Even if you did get a 100% performance increase, shaving off 3 seconds seems rather insignificant after having shaved off 20+ seconds by transitioning from a HDD to an SSD.

Since Intel's 320 Series introduction a few months ago, there have been no significant change in this market. The Intel 320 Series 160GB would be a good first choice if it is in your price range.

What about one piece vs RAID-0 2 pieces? Does it have enough performance difference to justify the cost?

If RAID is actively the middle man between your OS and the SSD, yes. The TRIM commands will be silently discarded.

For a guy who owns some expensive hardware, it's a little surprising to see you not doing your basic homework first.

Then again, it seems like you're yet another victim of popular hardware recommendations. Are you ever going to buy a second GPU to justify that 850W PSU? And buying gaming RAM is like spending 100% extra cash for 1% extra performance. Wait, Samsung has 10,000RPM 1TB HDDs? Do you even have a good display to go with all your expensive hardware? It'll be such a shame to spend so much only to game or watch videos on a cheap LCD.

Good call on the CM Hyper 212+ though. It's bit of a work to assemble, but a lot better than the stock cooler and good bang for the buck. I hope you'll get it soon.

Ah, sorry about that ambiguity. Yes, I was talking about your hardware sig.

You could try using Speccy. It should be able to identify your HDD model, and most other components of your rig if the need arises.

No surprise there.

Without knowing the model number, I could only guess that your display is this one. That one seems plenty good for a family display. But if I want to do gaming, I'd rather buy a bunch of U2311H, three or five of them and then buy ATI cards and then do Eyefinity with them. Mwahahahahaha.

If your sig is correct, your current motherboard doesn't have any SATA 6.0 Gbps ports (aka SATA 3), only SATA 3.0 Gbps ports (aka SATA 2). (Confused? Blame marketing.)

This means that the super fast SSDs (eg: Vertex 3) that depends on SATA 6.0 Gbps will be wasted on your current motherboard. I'd go for a good capacity/cost SSD (disclaimer: I always prefer capacity/cost ), like Intel's Series 320 SSDs. They'll be plenty fast and have more space for you to play with.

Same here.

You do realise that a performance test of copying files from a HDD to your SSD will be bottlenecked by your HDD's performance and won't properly test your SSD's performance?

You might want to check if CrystalDiskMark is writing incompressible data (random data) or compressible data.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/corsair-forc...b-ssd-review/16

You shouldn't buy the smallest and cheapest possible SSD as you won't properly enjoy it and it will only increase your total cost for little good reason.

I suggest that you consider the Kingston V+ Series 96GB from Viewnet that is selling for RM549. There may be an additional small discount if you pay in cash.

The next price bracket up for SSDs is in the RM700 range for the 120GB to 128GB SSDs.

You can force Windows to not auto-allocate the 100MB by partition the SSD yourself manually.

I have no idea. I've done it for two machines I used a lot and haven't experienced a problem.