• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Top performing SSD with good reliability?

O

Overspeed

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Messages
227
So I was all set to get a Crucial M4 256GB drive for my new i7 2700k build. I was searching for GPU benchmarks to choose a good vid card and by chance I found myself on this page:

http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/high_end_drives.html

I was amazed to see the M4 so far down the list. All the research I had done, even the opinions of users here on HF all blessed the M4. So why such a poor score?

That said, I am willing to pay more for a better drive if needed. My bottom line is I want top of the line (or close to) performance without compromising on quality/reliability. I would avoid getting a drive that performs the best but will die in 20 days for example. Thoughts?

Full system so far:

P8Z68-V Pro Gen3
i7 2700k
Corsair ax650 PSU
Crucial M4 256GB
Antec p280 case
XFX 7950 Black Ed. OC @ 900Mhz
H100 CPU cooler w/2 noctura p12 fans inside of OEM
16GB Corsair Vengeance CL9 @ 1600
ASUS BC-12B1ST Internal 12X Blu-Ray Reader
Win7 Pro

Paying $2K on ncix.com
 
Overspeed said:
So I was all set to get a Crucial M4 256GB drive for my new i7 2700k build. I was searching for GPU benchmarks to choose a good vid card and by chance I found myself on this page:

http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/high_end_drives.html

I was amazed to see the M4 so far down the list. All the research I had done, even the opinions of users here on HF all blessed the M4. So why such a poor score?
Click to expand...
Two reasons:
1) Because PassMark is a series of synthetic benchmarks. The majority of those "top SSDs" are Sandforce based. Generally Sandforce based SSDs score extremely well in synthetic benchmarks. However synthetic benchmarks do not translate to any preview of real world performance.

2) The PassMark program puts a great emphasis on read and write speeds than any other SSD performance metric. However, unless you're doing a ton of a file transfers to the SSDs, the high-read and write speeds don't really matter. It's the random read/write speeds that determines just how fast a SSD really is. In random read/writes, the Crucial M4 at least matches, if not outperforms, the Sandforce based SSDs while being of higher reliability.

Overspeed said:
That said, I am willing to pay more for a better drive if needed. My bottom line is I want top of the line (or close to) performance without compromising on quality/reliability. I would avoid getting a drive that performs the best but will die in 20 days for example. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Stick with the Crucial M4. Still one of the more reliable SSDs out there.

Overspeed said:
i7 2700k
Click to expand...
Why the 2700K over the 2600K? The 2700K is never worth the extra cash over the 2600K unless you just want to burn money.
 
Danny Bui said:
Why the 2700K over the 2600K? The 2700K is never worth the extra cash over the 2600K unless you just want to burn money.
Click to expand...

Dude, I tried to explain my uncle this, but I simply just could not get it through his skull. Nothing I said to him convinced him. I just guess the .1ghz clock difference was enough to justify $30-$40. This processor just makes me sad.

I just quietly laugh it it when I see it.
 
CallMeCooper said:
Dude, I tried to explain my uncle this, but I simply just could not get it through his skull. Nothing I said to him convinced him. I just guess the .1ghz clock difference was enough to justify $30-$40. This processor just makes me sad.

I just quietly laugh it it when I see it.
Click to expand...

LOL!.
 
Why the 2700k? Because there is a sale on and I can get it for the same price as the 2600k. Otherwise I would not consider it. Thx for the info.
 
Yep, I run M3s and recommend them. Better warranty than the M4, very similar drive.

Oh, and friends don't let friends buy Sandforce.
 
The SandForce drives are far more reliable since ~november last year when they fixed their BSOD issue.

I'm not sure what the average user will see as far as random read and sequential read, but generally speaking the Marvell-based drives offer better overall performance due to how the controller's work. In SandForce controllers the compressible data will read/write significantly faster whereas Marvell controllers will tend to perform somewhat slower in compressible but far faster in incompressible workloads. Samsung is another great alternative and is actually faster than Marvell-based drives and offers the same flexibility but has only a 3 year warranty.

Get the Plextor M3 if you want a longer warranty. The biggest difference between the drives with the same controller tends to be the price, warranty and the NAND, and in both respects the Plextors are great :)
 
I'd suggest the Crucial M4, Intel 510 series, (520 looks promising but not enough track record yet) or Samsung 830, are all great.

I personally have an M4 in my system, and ran a C300 for quite a while before that. Never had any problems.
 
The 510 and 520 are both atrociously expensive without reason. Intel drives in general are pointlessly expensive. The 520 makes a bit more sense if you specifically want a SF-based drive and are willing to pay the extra cash because Intel is providing the firmware. But why not then buy a Marvell-based drive and not have to worry about noncompressible data slowdowns? or "new state" performance?

It's not that the Intel drives aren't great; they are. The question is are they worth their hefty price tag in comparison to drives that can offer equal performance and match the warranty as well as reliability? Hell, if you want to compare reliability track record you'd have to go back to the 8MB bug with Intel's SataII gen drives so they've had their fair share of problems as well.

Crucial/Plextor/Corsair performance Pro/Samsung are all great drives. If you want a SF-2281 drive then buy one with synch NAND. I'm using a Corsair SF2281 drive in my PC for the last few months now without any problems whatsoever
 
From everything that I have read, Intel went the route of longevity and reliability instead of read/writes, which to me makes much more since, and if you have to pay a little more for reliability and length of life, I'm ok with that.
 
CallMeCooper said:
From everything that I have read, Intel went the route of longevity and reliability instead of read/writes, which to me makes much more since, and if you have to pay a little more for reliability and length of life, I'm ok with that.
Click to expand...

But why pay more? The Marvell based drives are proven, very fast, and the Plextor M3 has a 5 year warranty just like Intel's 520... for about 1/2 to 1/3 the price.
 
CallMeCooper said:
From everything that I have read, Intel went the route of longevity and reliability instead of read/writes, which to me makes much more since, and if you have to pay a little more for reliability and length of life, I'm ok with that.
Click to expand...

where did you get that?

The Intel drives perform just as well as the upper tier SandForce drives. Furthermore, don't think that because the speed increases the reliability decreases. Speedy performance has nothing to do reliability but rather the quality of the NAND, controller and warranty period. Plextor offers a Marvell-based controller (1), good toggle NAND (2) and matches the 5 year warranty period that Intel offers (3).

It's Intel charging an Intel tax. It's sort of like the current Apple tax and the old Sony tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top