Samsung 840 EVO-Series SSDs

[leaderroy]

Samsung Electronics 840 EVO-Series ranges from 35-46% off on 120GB-1TB SSDs

[Raphael_123]

$85 for 120GB thats $5 off lol.

 

Im buying intel 730 series anyways 

[Drown]

Not a bad deal, but still I'd rather get a V300 for 65$ (120GB) than paying 20$ for the EVO. It's a great SSD, but isn't worth the difference in price IMO.

[leaderroy]

At least the prices are dropping, right?

[Fred Castellum]

Not in the market for a new SSD but Samsung is probably the company I'll be nabbing my next SSD from. 

[JAKEBAB]

$260 for 500gb samsung ssd is pretty descent.

[Stephen Chou]

I like the Samsung EVO 840 series. They have very high quality SSD's.

[Scionyde]

Not a bad deal, but still I'd rather get a V300 for 65$ (120GB) than paying 20$ for the EVO. It's a great SSD, but isn't worth the difference in price IMO.

 

Keep in mind those V300's are likely the product of a bait and switch by Kingston in using inferior flash. http://www.anandtech.com/show/7763/an-update-to-kingston-ssdnow-v300-a-switch-to-slower-micron-nand

 

I know you're probably speaking hypothetically, and that an average user will still find it much better than an HDD, but I thought it worth mentioning. Personally, I don't know if I would want to give Kingston my money for that nice little lack of ethics. >_<

[NannerBeans]

Not a bad deal, but still I'd rather get a V300 for 65$ (120GB) than paying 20$ for the EVO. It's a great SSD, but isn't worth the difference in price IMO.

 

Inferior flash change ruined it. It's like half the speed now. 

[Drown]

Inferior flash change ruined it. It's like half the speed now. 

 

Keep in mind those V300's are likely the product of a bait and switch by Kingston in using inferior flash. http://www.anandtech.com/show/7763/an-update-to-kingston-ssdnow-v300-a-switch-to-slower-micron-nand

 

I know you're probably speaking hypothetically, and that an average user will still find it much better than an HDD, but I thought it worth mentioning. Personally, I don't know if I would want to give Kingston my money for that nice little lack of ethics. >_<

 

Cheers guys for bringing this to my attention, I wasn't aware of that.

 

I have a 840 EVO myself, I was able to get it cheap and at the time the V300 wasn't that cheap .. I guess I know why it's that cheap now.

[lhikary]

$85 for 120GB thats $5 off lol.

 

Im buying intel 730 series anyways 

not worth getting it its expensive for no reason

[FluffyNuggets]

Prices are plummeting so I'm holding out for even cheaper 1TB SSD's. I have 2 120GB's now and small drives just aren't worth it!

[Faceman]

I have a V300, how could I test the speed of it? 

[d3sl91]

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Kingston-SSDNow-V300-240GB-vs-Samsung-840-Evo-250GB/1817vs1594

 

Benchmark compare site comparing the V300 and the 840. (No idea how credible this site is...)

 

I have a V300 in my NAS as the boot drive, 3 months old, no problems "yet". Have a SanDisk Extreme 1 as my primary boot drive, so, I just picked up one of these 840s (256GB) to replace that (and use the SanDisk to install a few of my games to).

[SkilledRebuilds]

I hate this compressed/uncompressed speed rating system they falsely advertise with.

 

Had an OCz Agility 3, on the packaging 550/500 (real rated speeds of 210/120)

Had a Kingston cheap SSD 500/450 (real rated speeds of 265/110)

 

Now have a Samsung 840 Pro with real rated speeds of 545/520

 

*System response of the 840Pro & Agility3 were neck and neck in everyday usability (booting/updating/fluent speeds) however transferring back and forth sequentially was the limiting factor on the Agility3's 220MB/s read.

 

Buy a decent SSD to begin with and you'll be laughing.

[Sintezza]

lol i bought a Samsung 128GB pro just before the  EVO series came out, gosh im still hurting my head, if i see that could had saved me €25 

[Faceman]

I hate this compressed/uncompressed speed rating system they falsely advertise with.

 

Had an OCz Agility 3, on the packaging 550/500 (real rated speeds of 210/120)

Had a Kingston cheap SSD 500/450 (real rated speeds of 265/110)

 

Now have a Samsung 840 Pro with real rated speeds of 545/520

 

*System response of the 840Pro & Agility3 were neck and neck in everyday usability (booting/updating/fluent speeds) however transferring back and forth sequentially was the limiting factor on the Agility3's 220MB/s read.

 

Buy a decent SSD to begin with and you'll be laughing.

So the everyday usability of my V300 is fine.  I wouldn't notice a difference between what I have now and the Samsung 840. 

 

Please correct me if I am wrong, but what you are saying is, the Samsung and other highly touted SSDs only excel in large file transfers. The day to day operations booting/updating/fluent speeds of any SSD is generally unnoticed from brand to brand?

[SkilledRebuilds]

So the everyday usability of my V300 is fine.  I wouldn't notice a difference between what I have now and the Samsung 840. 

 

Please correct me if I am wrong, but what you are saying is, the Samsung and other highly touted SSDs only excel in large file transfers. The day to day operations booting/updating/fluent speeds of any SSD is generally unnoticed from brand to brand?

Generally yes, the random read and write speeds on any SSD (cheap or not) are better than Non-SSD HDD's, plus the instant access time is what matters the most for accessing and loading files quickly.

Cheaper SSD's still excel better than normal HDD's in all aspects. I've had my Agility 3 system next to my 840 Pro system, doing various tests and they are pretty evenly matched for general usage.

Loading the OS/Firefox/Backups/Virus scanners, navigating windows explorer and whatnot are all the same between these two systems.

[Faceman]

Generally yes, the random read and write speeds on any SSD (cheap or not) are better than Non-SSD HDD's, plus the instant access time is what matters the most for accessing and loading files quickly.

Cheaper SSD's still excel better than normal HDD's in all aspects. I've had my Agility 3 system next to my 840 Pro system, doing various tests and they are pretty evenly matched for general usage.

Loading the OS/Firefox/Backups/Virus scanners, navigating windows explorer and whatnot are all the same between these two systems.

Good to know, thank you for the quick and detailed response.  Definitely making me feel better about "cheaping out" on my SSD purchase.  Still not fond of Kingston doing a bait and switch, but what can you do.  In the future I will probably spend an extra $10 for that piece of mind, but for now I am content with the performance my Kingston V300 provides over HDD storage.

[SkilledRebuilds]

Good to know, thank you for the quick and detailed response.  Definitely making me feel better about "cheaping out" on my SSD purchase.  Still not fond of Kingston doing a bait and switch, but what can you do.  In the future I will probably spend an extra $10 for that piece of mind, but for now I am content with the performance my Kingston V300 provides over HDD storage.

There are applications like Crystaldiskmark that can do both compressed/uncompressed testing.(enabled/disabled through the menu). This is how I found the realworld raw transfer speeds being lower than expected/advertised.

 

AS-SSD is a great benchtest for SSD's, only shows the REAL rated speeds capable.

There are other programs, but these two show the huge difference "on paper" and real world.

My Agility 3 has 220/110 in AS-SSD<everytime,every test, yet in CrystalDM, its 500/400 and varies a bit in each test, this is the compression technique at work...

But your choice of the Kingston is going to be a farcry better than most if not all mechanical drives.