what ssd should i get?

[Dylan Clarke]

i want to get an SSD but I don't know what one to get. my budget is £50. I don't know much about m.2 and stuff like that. and does anyone know how to use the ssd with windows so it runs faster?

[TrigrH]

Go for a sata SSD with onboard ram:

 

WD BLUE

Crucial MX500

Samsung 860 evo.

 

Whichever is cheaper, aim for 500gb if you can.

[Enderman]

4 minutes ago, TrigrH said:

Go for a sata SSD with onboard ram:

 

WD BLUE

Crucial MX500

Samsung 860 evo.

 

Whichever is cheaper, aim for 500gb if you can.

If you're talking about cache, all SSDs have it.

That's part of how an SSD works.

Cache is also not the same thing as ram.

 

What matters is you buy a reliable brand, such as samsung or intel or crucial.

[TrigrH]

6 minutes ago, Enderman said:

If you're talking about cache, all SSDs have it.

That's part of how an SSD works.

Cache is also not the same thing as ram.

 

What matters is you buy a reliable brand, such as samsung or intel or crucial.

not all SSDs have a Dram cache. Most cheaper units dont.

[LukeSavenije]

21 minutes ago, Enderman said:

What matters is you buy a reliable brand, such as samsung or intel or crucial.

and even then, most outsider companies ztill use micron(-intel), skhynix, flash forward (sandisk/toshiba) or samsung nand.

 

I've seen the ex900 for the price

[Enderman]

19 minutes ago, TrigrH said:

not all SSDs have a Dram cache. Most cheaper units dont.

All SSD controllers require a dram cache to work.

It is impossible to have an SSD without a controller, sata and PCIe does not support that kind of storage communication with the operating system.

[TrigrH]

9 minutes ago, Enderman said:

All SSD controllers require a dram cache to work.

It is impossible to have an SSD without a controller, sata and PCIe does not support that kind of storage communication with the operating system.

Yes most controllers have a super tiny amount in the megabytes. Without a dedicated DRAM chip you lose performance.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/crucial-bx500-480-gb/3.html

[Dylan Clarke]

thanks guys. should I worry about the ssd not fitting in my pc?

[Dylan Clarke]

and which one would be the right one to get? this https://www.amazon.co.uk/Crucial-MX500-CT500MX500SSD4-2280SS-Internal/dp/B077SQ8J1V/ref=sr_1_8?keywords=Crucial+MX500&qid=1566124765&s=gateway&sr=8-8

 

or

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Crucial-MX500-CT500MX500SSD1-NAND-Internal/dp/B0784SLQM6/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=Crucial+MX500&qid=1566124804&s=gateway&sr=8-4

[LukeSavenije]

2 minutes ago, Dylan Clarke said:

and which one would be the right one to get?

same ssd, different formfactor

 

but I'd take a sabrent rocket over it, and if you want a little cheaper a 660p

[Dylan Clarke]

do I need to buy any wires or stuff separately. because I watched this video and he bought other wires separately?

[Olaf6541]

For the m.2 drive you dont need any cables, does your motherboard support m.2 devices?

[Dylan Clarke]

1 hour ago, Olaf6541 said:

For the m.2 drive you dont need any cables, does your motherboard support m.2 devices?

I don't know if it does, its a LENOVO SKYBAY    SDK0J40700 WIN 3258059982196. 

 

and are m.2 ssd better? or faster?

[Olaf6541]

1 hour ago, Dylan Clarke said:

I don't know if it does, its a LENOVO SKYBAY    SDK0J40700 WIN 3258059982196. 

 

and are m.2 ssd better? or faster?

 

No m.2 is just a different physical form factor. Im not sure if your motherboard has m.2 slots, can you check for them? Look for something similar to this:

 

[Dylan Clarke]

4 hours ago, Olaf6541 said:

 

No m.2 is just a different physical form factor. Im not sure if your motherboard has m.2 slots, can you check for them? Look for something similar to this:

 

https://imgur.com/a/fArFbuL

 

I think

[Olaf6541]

2 hours ago, Dylan Clarke said:

https://imgur.com/a/fArFbuL

 

I think

I dont think your motherboard has m.2 slots, i would advice you to buy the 2.5" sata drive.

[hello_there_123]

660p 512gb would easily be the best option for you , at 56 pounds on CCL 

 

however if your mobo does not support m.2 nvme then you should get the WD BLUE 500gb on amazon for 57 pounds

[hello_there_123]

16 hours ago, TrigrH said:

Go for a sata SSD with onboard ram:

 

WD BLUE

Crucial MX500

Samsung 860 evo.

There are a lot more ssds with dram than that...

[hello_there_123]

16 hours ago, Enderman said:

What matters is you buy a reliable brand, such as samsung or intel or crucial.

3. For the last few years we haven't had any major failure rate events on SSDs 

4. Most of the time SSDs fail because of user stupidity like using a bad PSU 

[TrigrH]

7 minutes ago, hello_there_123 said:

There are a lot more ssds with dram than that...

im fully aware lol, I just listed some solid choices.

[Enderman]

1 minute ago, hello_there_123 said:

 

It's not so much about failure, it's about durability.

You'll see cheap SSDs get all kinds of smart errors after a couple years, and also slow down due to degradation like is very common with kingston SSDs.

 

Also SSDs are very resiliant to bad PSUs, much more than HDDs.

I've had SSDs survive PSU failures that killed all other PC components and HDDs.

[hello_there_123]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

 

My point is that you cannot say one SSD is reliable than the other. Because you got no proof! 

 

Like if i just one day decided to say that the mx500 is more reliable than the 860 evo. No one can prove me wrong , but I can, t prove my own statement either. Because we don,t got no failure rates! Only if I look at the controller , nand and benchmarks , can i deduce what is better. 

 

Brand name does not carry any weight. There are plenty of "reliable" SSDs from not Samsung , intel crucial WD or whatever. Like for example the Sabrent rocket. Packed with a phison e12 controller and i believe 64L toshiba nand , it rivals the 970 evo in sustained performance. 

[Enderman]

8 minutes ago, hello_there_123 said:

My point is that you cannot say one SSD is reliable than the other. Because you got no proof! 

 

Like if i just one day decided to say that the mx500 is more reliable than the 860 evo. No one can prove me wrong , but I can, t prove my own statement either. Because we don,t got no failure rates! Only if I look at the controller , nand and benchmarks , can i deduce what is better. 

 

Brand name does not carry any weight. There are plenty of "reliable" SSDs from not Samsung , intel crucial WD or whatever. Like for example the Sabrent rocket. Packed with a phison e12 controller and i believe 64L toshiba nand , it rivals the 970 evo in sustained performance. 

Samsung makes 100% of the SSD themselves, including the controller and firmware too.

Other SSD manufacturers buy their parts elsewhere.

 

You can also get an idea of failures by looking at the proportion of issues to popularity of the SSD model.

Read forum posts, reddit, reviews, etc etc etc and you will figure it out.

 

Again, it is not about performance.

All sata SSDs will get about 500MBs reads and writes, the benchmarks are pretty much useless because you cannot tell the difference between 520 and 515MB/s.

What matters is the overall reliability, quality control, brand reputation, and reviews/complaints.

[hello_there_123]

5 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Samsung makes 100% of the SSD themselves, including the controller and firmware too.

Other SSD manufacturers buy their parts elsewhere.

Ok so? Why does this make Samsung better? 

 

People make the same arguemwnt with seasonic and PSUs , but none of seasonic,s psus are worth buying...

6 minutes ago, Enderman said:

You can also get an idea of failures by looking at the proportion of issues to popularity of the SSD model.

Read forum posts, reddit, reviews, etc etc etc and you will figure it out.

Yeah , you wanna count up the number of posts on reddit etc? You have that time ?

And you don,t know how many were sold , manufacturer rarely release those numbers... 

6 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Again, it is not about performance.

All sata SSDs will get about 500MBs reads and writes, the benchmarks are pretty much useless because you cannot tell the difference between 520 and 515MB/s.

What matters is the overall reliability, quality control, brand reputation, and reviews/complaints.

500 mb/ s  that is on sustained sequential QD32 load. 4krandom  r/w QD1 , by far the most relevant benchmark to consumer , tells a much different story... 

 

>overall reliaibliity + reviews/complaints 

Again i already talked about this , YOU DO NOT HAVE FAILURE RATES. Unless you can add up the number of post ON THE ENTIRE INTERNET and some of them may even be lying or whatever else , then reviews/complaints do not matter at all... 

>brand reputation 

Entirely subjective , and a company,s past actions does not always mean they will make a good/bad products now. 

>quality control 

YOU. HAVE. NO. IDEA. WHAT. THE. QUALITY. CONTROL. IS. LIKE. 

You do not have failure rates! 

Unless you personally go to their factory and inspect their QC. And even then that is only 1 inspection , maybe they are on a bad day etc. 

Yes , QC matters. But do we have any idea of what it is like? NO!