Tech Support banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
ok, so ive ironed out all the problem i have had 'so far' with my new build.

Its working well but i'd like a little more responsiveness and speed when loading up.

I have been looking at SSDs for a little while and i know you guys dont really recommend them yet, but im interested in the performance it iwll give me in terms or loading speed, which is where my build is lacking at the moment.

it currently has a HDD (western digital caviar blue 500gb) which i want to keep most data on. However im planning on getting a SSD for windows 7 and some games.

I'd like to get a 120/128GB one.

So here are my questions:

Are the issues with the SF2000 controllers resolved yet, enough so that i can be confident in a good compatiblity with my PC?

These are the ones i have been looking at:

Kingston v+200 SSD
ADATA s510 SSD
Agility 3 SSD

I dont mind if theyre not the fastest i just want a boot in performance and for them to work in my system.

If you want me to put my build up for any reason just let me know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
That does look good, but why is it better than the ones i posted, it would cost me about £20 ($30) more than the ones i posted and it uses the same controllers and is about the same speed.

Is it better because of the brand, becaues it was mSata or another reason?

thanks for the quick reply
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
ok, does it work, are there still anyproblems?

also my previous questions(if anyone can answer them please):

That does look good, but why is it better than the ones i posted, it would cost me about £20 ($30) more than the ones i posted and it uses the same controllers and is about the same speed.

Is it better because of the brand, becaues it was mSata or another reason?

thank you
 

·
Microsoft MVP, Microsoft Team Moderator, Articles
Joined
·
39,522 Posts
mSATA stands for Micro-SATA

Its smaller and people ted to enjoy a smaller compent due to heat and case room.

gizmoto.com said:
Supporting 1.5 Gb/s and 3.0 Gb/s transfer rates (peaking at half the speed of existing SATA), mSATA is intended for drives that are roughly the size of a business card.

The end products aren't really so different in terms of size, but the mSATA connection itself is, what, half the footprint of SATA?
 

·
TSF - Enthusiast
Joined
·
7,670 Posts
Is your motherboard still the GA-Z68X-UD3-B3 (from your other posts)?

An mSATA drive is a nice option, but is really only an option if your motherboard will mount one, which this board does not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Yes, it it that motherboard. i could get it on that motherboard but it would involve a converter and im not sure what the difference would be compared with a cheaper sata3 SSD.
 

·
TSF - Enthusiast
Joined
·
7,670 Posts
The big advantage of an mSATA drive is that it mounts directly on the motherboard, which means it should be slightly electrically faster, not to mention the absence of another set of cables. Yes, there are various converters/adapters which allow one to cable in an mSATA card as a 2.5" SATA drive but by doing so, you gain nothing and in fact lose mSATA's main advantage.

I'ld get a standard 2.5" drive along with a 3.5" mounting kit (total around £80). IMO the Crucial m4 drives are probably the best value price/performance wise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
ok, thanks for that information.

I'd like to rephase my question:

Im not looking for the fastest, i'd just like the performance boost change from a HDD.
Therefore is there any point spending £20-£20 more on something thats a little faster in benchmarks, has the same specs and the same controller?
 

·
Moderator, - Microsoft Support, BSOD Kernel Dump A
Joined
·
5,697 Posts
Reliability should be a major factor when looking for a drive - it holds your data. Generally, you'd notice little real world performance differences between the latest editions of most of the SSD's on the market.

Intel, Crucial, Samsung and probably Plextor (too early to tell) have the best reputation for reliability. The Samsung 830 is pretty good value - no Sandforce controller either: Samsung SSD 830 2.5inch SATA III 6GBps 128GB Desktop Accessory Kit with Free Norton Ghost 15: Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Although it would be annoying for the SSD to die or crash, it wouldnt be too bad, since its a gaming pc i wouldnt have any data on there that is important to me.

So there is not real world difference in speed between the ones i said in my 1st post and the crucial ect.. ones. i am just paying the extra £20-£30 for reliablity.

Correct me if im wrong but i'd like to think that a large amount of the SSDs on sale arent unreliable, its just that some arent as reliable as the others.

I have seen very few bad reviews for the kingston v+200 just like the samsung, and if the sf-200 controllers are fixed then i dont understand why i am still being advised to stay clear of them?
 

·
Moderator, - Microsoft Support, BSOD Kernel Dump A
Joined
·
5,697 Posts
Whether there would be noticeable real world differences would be entirely down to your workloads.

The Kingston V+200 has probably been around for less than ~ 50% of the time that the Samsung 830 has, that alone will make a big difference to the apparent reliability reporting.

Intel, Crucial (Micron) and Samsung have all been 'around' in the SSD market since the early days, both in the conception/formulation stages and as manufacturers of all, or almost all, components, many of the other 'makers' are little more than assemblers in comparison.

It's your choice, buying a cheaper SSD might not make any difference to you, just get the most recent model and update the firmware before installing Windows and you should be fine.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top