i was thinking of getting pcie based drives instead of sata

i think i saw a revodrive 3 x2 in viewnet .. 240GB .. the quoted price was 2.4K

any benefits over sata?

or get 2 vertex 3 in raid 0?

But a relative strength in all of those benchmarks doesn't necessarily translate into a positive gain in user experience. Does an extra 25% jump in testable data throughput cut your Windows boot time or make backing up a game on Steam faster by a corresponding percentage? Does it even directly translate into file copies that finish that much faster? Not at all.

So, here's the thing. Yes, there are clear cases, particularly if you're a power user, where owning a motherboard with 6 Gb/s is going to allow your 6 Gb/s-capable SSD to shine. However, if a friend were to ask us if he should hold off on an SSD purchase until he could upgrade his old Core 2 machine to something newer with 6 Gb/s connectivity, we'd say no. For someone using a hard drive today, a fast SSD (even one artificially hobbled by a 3 Gb/s port) will yield massive and immediate gains in nearly every aspect of computing.

Snagging one that does work with 6 Gb/s link rates ensures you get the most out of it after an upgrade, sure. However even Intel's SSD 320, based on an older proprietary controller constrained to 3 Gb/s remains an admirable piece of hardware.



We've used this chart before, but it tells a compelling story. There's a huge gap between the cluster of SSDs, the high-end hard drive in the middle of the graph, and the low-end hard drive in the upper right-hand corner. You have to zoom in quite a bit, though, to distinguish between high- and low-end SSDs. At the end of the day, even if you're a fairly hardcore enthusiast, there's fairly little sense in agonizing over which SATA 6Gb/s SSD is the fastest. As we mentioned, even Intel's 320 still stacks up remarkably well.

So banish any thought that you must save for the newest, most expensive, and highest-rated SSD. If you have the money for a platform upgrade, there are certainly measurable gains to be had from upgrading to a SATA 6Gb/s-capable motherboard and the best solid-state drive. On a tighter budget, however, buying the SSD that everyone says is the fastest isn't as important as buying an SSD you can afford, particularly if it means replacing a hard disk as your system drive.

As all OCZ drives, simply because they're the most popular... that means alot of failures.
But that was before the BSOD bug was fixed.

Otherwise for an Asynchronous SSD, it's pretty okay.
Fast and cheap. The other widely available alternative is Corsair's Force 3.

If you can however, get a Crucial M4 64GB.

Source: Buy The SSD You Can Afford, Not The Fastest One

The Real-World Tests page will further hammer in the message.

Thanks , I do heard a lot about ocz problems , anyway , now im going for Crucial M4 64Gb . Any problem if I ordered from taobao.com?

I think i will stick with the same brand, either M4 256GB x2 or 512GB.

we dont want BSOD lol i like faster loading lol

Ssd can get bad sector problem like hdd?

Anybody interested in OEM Samsung 830?
I'm currently using 128GB wanted to change to 256GB so wanted to sell off the 128GB one.

Not impossible, but very unlikely to happen. And if it does happen, it is less worrying than when it happens on a HDD.

i was think if i buy new rig i pick M4 only
which i choose 256GB Raid or 512GB Raid
we dont want BSOD lol i like faster loading lol

i'd choose to raid0 256GBx2 instead of single 512GB.
the speed is doubled & better redundancy. If one gone still got another one as a spare

i know 128GB diffrent speed 256GB is speed faster then 128GB

i know why 256GB And 512GB both same speed but what diffrent

i could see different in capacity only