it's about usage and budget. if it's for common usage, mainstream drives like samsung 850 evo (maybe even value drives) should suffice. if it's for work, which involves a lot of gigabytes of writes daily, i think it's better to get performance drives with larger tbw and longer warranty.

it's similar to corsair neutron xt.

assuming you're using the ssd for common usage, liteon s900 and transcend ssd370 should be good enough for you. you should check out garage sales also.

after-sale services depend on many things, i have no comment on this.

uh? why? they are fine to me.

yes samsung 850 evo is ok for that purpose. i suggest you go for at least 500gb, because the tbw is double (150tb) compare to those 250gb and below (75tb). the warranty period is the same, 5 years.

.. and i thought you wanna go for best bang for buck.

consumer sata ssds these days are categorized into 3: value, mainstream and performance. imo, anything in the mainstream category and up should be perfect for common use and for work. the three mainstream models are fine. they are from the brands that have the lowest return rates based on hardware.fr reports for some times now. however of the three i will pick up 850 evo for its longer warranty period.

from a brief search, the sata port in your laptop is sata1, which has max bandwidth of 150MB/s. even if you can run ssd, your system will be a bottleneck, capping it at that speed.

imo sata2 is the minimal sata spec to run ssd at acceptable good speed.

understood. you can still benefit from the higher iops, but in terms of speed, it might not be as significant as sata2 or above.

for now i think it's better to make a full data backup first, when the hdd is still working well.

don't mention it. unless you really need that additional boost in performance ssds, it's more viable to get a mainstream ssd with larger capacity.

if you looked for speed, get a ahci version of pcie x4 m.2 ssd. nvme is still having some issues according to user reports.

what ssd is this? looks fine to me.

oh haha

er that's what is supposed to be if you checked kingston savage specification.

Baseline Performance
Compressible Data Transfer (ATTO)
120GB — 560MB/s Read and 360MB/s Write
240GB, 480GB, 960GB — 560MB/s Read and 530MB/s Write

Incompressible Data Transfer (AS-SSD and CrystalDiskMark)
120GB — 520MB/s Read and 350MB/s Write
240GB — 520MB/s Read and 510MB/s Write
480GB — 520MB/s Read and 500MB/s Write
960GB — 520MB/s Read and 490MB/s Write

no problem. yeah usually 240 range is the sweet spot. sometimes it performs better than larger models.

i suspect it's about the number of channels/lanes provided by the controller and the amount of nand flash chips in the drives. this is physical properties of a ssd. from what i have read that the marvell controller in predator uses 4 lanes, while sandforce 2281 in hyperx 3k uses 8 channels. (usually the more lanes/channels or more chips the better)

maybe this is also why most pcie ssds do not have great 4k results.

This post has been edited by horns: Oct 20 2015, 09:49 AM

well maybe you want sandforce, maybe not. benchmarks are just numbers. it's true that pcie ssds are better than sata ssds in many areas in benchmarks. however it's not really that important for most users.

i have samsung xp941 and sm951. boot speed are better than sata ssds. other than that nothing really significant. (maybe because i run ram cache on top of ssds)

Sandisk was acquired by WD.

http://www.wdc.com/en/company/pressroom/re...3b-fe7e35572518

i do hope for that, but it might not be so soon for consumer market imo. i also hope they don't insist on making products like sshd, or ssd/hdd combo drives. i will not go for those definitely.

sandisk has some key technology advantages in ssd technology (e.g. the collaboration with hp that was said to be similar to intel/micron's xpoint memory technology. like intel/micron version, hp/sandisk said their tech is also 1000x faster and more endured hehe), but i think they will push this to enterprise first.

locally, it's too bad that sandisk doesn't do well. they had hiccups initially with sandforce controller (that's when their ssds were first appeared here. the worst part was that they couldn't come out with firmware fix as timely as kingston drives, which suffered the same issue); at the same time they have very strong competitions. it's not that competitive when you compared it with other brands. on top of that, if you checked the way consumers here justify values, sandisk is not in a good position hehe

haha hopefully. compared to a few years ago (like 2 years ago), for sata ssds, with the same price tag at that time you will get double the capacity today.

I know. If you asked seniors here that have already adopted ssds long before our time they will agree also. (In terms of availability, speed, iops, capacity, price, warranty, much less failure rates, etc.)

I think at later time there will be 512gb for 380. (Most probably at value ssd specs). To me i rather get a large ssd + usb hdd enclosure than usb sticks. It's relatively cheaper, with good performance boost in file transfers.

depending on the sata port you are connecting your ssd to, yes, it will. the best sata ports are intel-based sata port. check your mobo for details.

it should be good to go.

er what problem are you trying to solve? the normal process of migration is pretty straight forward. connect your new ssd to your computer via usb adapter. run migration software and start the migration. the new ssd will be detected automatically as target disk. proceed by following on-screen instructions.


This post has been edited by horns: Oct 29 2015, 10:10 PM

you must have turned the hibernation / fastboot feature off. (it's part of ssd optimizations; but it impacts boot speed) you can just turn it back on for fastboot.

in general, each ssd optimization might impact certain parts of your system. it's just a matter of 'give and take'. they should be applied based on outcomes that you need. you don't need to apply the whole thing.