shell shocker patriot pyro 120GB SataIII $110AR

P

pelo

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
2,911
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220603

If you don't have an SSD and don't mind waiting on rebates, this is an awesome deal. With the last firmware update these are much more reliable. I have a 90GB corsair I jumped on a month ago that shares the same controller and it's been awesome. Had I not gotten the Corsair I'd certainly go for this.

Cheap even without the rebate at $150.
 
there have been so many deals in the last few days on 80-120gb SSDs. think these are about what theyre gonna be for a while or will they keep going down over the next few months? im in no hurry, but considering getting one jut because.
 
yankee495 said:
Whats the scoop on this? Not the best memory for an SSD?
Click to expand...

You generally want sync nand, but it tends to be more expensive. The difference in performance though is very minimal.

These are essentially the same drives as the Corsair Force, or Agility drives from OCZ. I've read that SSD prices won't drop to 1GB-per-dollar until late this year. It's only these random deals that offer prices comparable or lower than 1-to-1 so it's definitely a good deal.
 
Last edited:
You will NOT notice a difference between syn and async ssd's. That's mostly just there to flex your epeen. This drive is amazing for the price and if I actually needed one, I would jump ALL over this.
 
pelo said:
You generally want sync nand, but it tends to be more expensive. The difference in performance though is very minimal.

These are essentially the same drives as the Corsair Force, or Agility drives from OCZ. I've read that SSD prices won't drop till 1GB-per-dollar until late this year. It's only these random deals that offer prices comparable or lower than 1-to-1 so it's definitely a good deal.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I read up on it a bit...

I remember when we were waiting on HDD's to get to $1 per GB.
 
pelo said:
You generally want sync nand, but it tends to be more expensive. The difference in performance though is very minimal.
Click to expand...

Performance difference is not minimal:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4346/ocz-agility-3-240gb-review/2

Random read (eg. where it matters) is about 60% of the Vertex 3 (sync NAND based).

Edit: Added the Corsair Series 3 / Agility 3 reviews (both async NAND) below. With "random" data, their performance is about 50% compared to the sync NAND based Force GT/Vertex drives.
http://www.storagereview.com/corsair_force_series_3_review
http://www.storagereview.com/ocz_agility_3_review_240gb
 
Last edited:
can someone explain this sync/async thing to me? and quick before it sells out? :( thanks guys!
 
The difference really boils down to speed and cost. Synch is more expensive but faster and Asynch is slower and cheaper. Though the benchmarks above show a staggering difference, that depends on the data and benchmark. In reality, if you're transitioning from a platter drive it'll be a night and day difference and you won't notice synch vs. asynch unless you're always reading/moving very large files. Speaking from personal experience, it's hard to tell a difference between my SATA 3GB/s SSD and my 6GB/s SSD other than a couple seconds at bootup.

It's more complex than that, but that's the gist of it.
 
Last edited:
ekuest said:
can someone explain this sync/async thing to me? and quick before it sells out? :( thanks guys!
Click to expand...

Through mistakes I have made, I have learned to buy first ask questions later. In an hour or two if you change your mind you can go log in and cancel the order.
 
yankee495 said:
Thanks, I read up on it a bit...

I remember when we were waiting on HDD's to get to $1 per GB.
Click to expand...

pfft. The first hard drive I bought new was a whopping 1.2GB to replace a whatever sorry sized drive was in my computer at the time... probably a 120MB.

That sucker cost me $100. I was so happy to have a bigger, faster drive.
 
Mine was 850 MB (new one)...forgot the price...and put in a used 500 MB or something...
Then a used 8.4 GB for $125...was rockin' then!

Lots in between...40's, 80's, 160 & 250, 500, 750. Been in it since 1983. First drive was not a hard drive at all. It was like 160 KB then a 320 KB drive.

Then 1TB Seagate 7200.12 for $59! Prices on HDDs now sucks!

So I guess that is not a bad deal...going to wait...but like my HDTV & new Phenom rig...if you wait on the next new thing you'll never have nothing!

By wait, I mean for a bigger drive at this $1 per GB. Can't wait for 1 TB SSDs at 25 cents or less a GB.
 
MissJ84 said:
NAND Flash Faces Off - Synchronous vs. Asynchronous
Click to expand...
After scanning through the article, unfortunately [H] does the type of thing that frosts my weenie, which is when they show bar graphs/charts they don't zero them out when comparing two separate products, or at the very least scale the sizes to reflect the difference.

The article starts out by saying "just looking at numbers you can't really see much of a difference", and I get it they tested them to get performance out of there, but why bother with all the visuals if they're going to be EXTREMELY misleading. Hell the first chart with the HD Tune tests, just a glance at the bar graph looks like the average read speed is twice as much for the sync one over the async, that's a 100% increase in speed!!!! However running the numbers you see that's just over 9% difference. Elsewhere there are even larger discrepancies in size difference to numerical difference.

That is all :)

Carry on, if you're going from a HD to a SSD, I don't think it'll make one flipping difference you'll see a big speed bump, just make sure it's not a first gen SSD, if you're worried about your epeen then by all means get the sync one for more :)
 
sfsuphysics said:
After scanning through the article, unfortunately [H] does the type of thing that frosts my weenie, which is when they show bar graphs/charts they don't zero them out when comparing two separate products, or at the very least scale the sizes to reflect the difference.

The article starts out by saying "just looking at numbers you can't really see much of a difference", and I get it they tested them to get performance out of there, but why bother with all the visuals if they're going to be EXTREMELY misleading. Hell the first chart with the HD Tune tests, just a glance at the bar graph looks like the average read speed is twice as much for the sync one over the async, that's a 100% increase in speed!!!! However running the numbers you see that's just over 9% difference. Elsewhere there are even larger discrepancies in size difference to numerical difference.

That is all :)

Carry on, if you're going from a HD to a SSD, I don't think it'll make one flipping difference you'll see a big speed bump, just make sure it's not a first gen SSD, if you're worried about your epeen then by all means get the sync one for more :)
Click to expand...

yeah im much more worried about failure and degradation over time than about preformance. the difference between windows loading in 2 or 2.5 seconds is kinda not in the least important to me. as for the charts, i just read the intro and conclusion to learn what the deal is, didnt really look at the numbers. going back through i only see one graph thats really misleading: the "hd tune pro read."
 
They went OoS real fast. Had purchased a couple only to get an email that they could not fulfil the order because they are out of stock!

Oh man!
 
ekuest said:
going back through i only see one graph thats really misleading: the "hd tune pro read."
Click to expand...
Look at "Application loading" bottom of page 4, that's way off the charts (no pun) too as far as accuracy in graph.
 
I want to see a review with the latest firmware on the drive.

I looked at a couple different reviews and one showed the Pyro as being quite a bit slower than other drives in the tests, while the other review showed the Pyro as being just a tiny bit slower than the higher end drives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top