Jump to content

SSD recommendation

Go to solution Solved by Bombastinator,
21 minutes ago, Mohammed Abu Jayyab said:

Was looking for a 2tb ssd and came across 4 options that seemed good. These prices are in sweden and are roughly converted to usd.

Team group cardea zero 2tb 190 usd 

Kioxia exceria pro 2tb 200 usd 

Kingston kc3000 2tb 229 usd

WD Sn850 2tb (No heatsink) same price as the Kingston drive

Which one of these would be best to pick up?

Based purely on brand Kioxia has the best rep. Western Digital made some really cheapass mechanical hard drives (which these aren’t) Kingston I associate with DRAM and teamgroup with lower end stuff.  These days brand means near nothing though.  I would look at the various read and write speeds and the number of writes before failure.  Also whether or not they have cache.  That last is a less useful metric than it used to be though.

Was looking for a 2tb ssd and came across 4 options that seemed good. These prices are in sweden and are roughly converted to usd.

Team group cardea zero 2tb 190 usd 

Kioxia exceria pro 2tb 200 usd 

Kingston kc3000 2tb 229 usd

WD Sn850 2tb (No heatsink) same price as the Kingston drive

Which one of these would be best to pick up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Mohammed Abu Jayyab said:

Was looking for a 2tb ssd and came across 4 options that seemed good. These prices are in sweden and are roughly converted to usd.

Team group cardea zero 2tb 190 usd 

Kioxia exceria pro 2tb 200 usd 

Kingston kc3000 2tb 229 usd

WD Sn850 2tb (No heatsink) same price as the Kingston drive

Which one of these would be best to pick up?

Based purely on brand Kioxia has the best rep. Western Digital made some really cheapass mechanical hard drives (which these aren’t) Kingston I associate with DRAM and teamgroup with lower end stuff.  These days brand means near nothing though.  I would look at the various read and write speeds and the number of writes before failure.  Also whether or not they have cache.  That last is a less useful metric than it used to be though.

Not a pro, not even very good.  I’m just old and have time currently.  Assuming I know a lot about computers can be a mistake.

 

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look at this vid this channel tested nearly 30 Gen4 SSD :

 

 

System : AMD R9 5900X / X570 AORUS PRO/ 2x16GB Corsair Vengeance 3600CL18 (OCed to CL16)/ RTX3080 Gigabyte EAGLE GPU/ Phanteks P600S case / Customized Watercooling Eisbaer 280mm + Eiswolf2 360mm + VPP755 pump  and 150mm reservoir0.5TB Sabrent Rocket + 2TB WD SN850 NVme Gen4 + 4TB Toshiba X300 HDD drives/ Corsair RM850x PSU/ 34" 120Hz 3440x1440p Alienware AW3420DW monitor / Logitech G915TKL keyboard (wireless) / Logitech G PRO X Superlight mouse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PDifolco said:

Have a look at this vid this channel tested nearly 30 Gen4 SSD :

 

 

This is speed vs. cost focused with an eye on capacity.  I am most interested in reliability.  All SSDs are fast enough for me.  For me it’s write count vs cost.

Not a pro, not even very good.  I’m just old and have time currently.  Assuming I know a lot about computers can be a mistake.

 

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

This is speed vs. cost focused with an eye on capacity.  I am most interested in reliability.  All SSDs are fast enough for me.  For me it’s write count vs cost.

Well, reliabilty as per "average time before failure" is unknown for those recent drives, so not a criteria...

Regarding write counts both of my Gen4 NVme (a Sabrent Rocket 4 and a WD SN850) report they'll last more than 50 years (normal gaming PC usage), so neither is it a criteria !! 🙂

Only thing worth mentioning is that the fastest 7GB/sec drives tend to get quite hot (80C+ in torture test) and need heatsink and room to breathe (so putting them under a GPU is not recommended)

System : AMD R9 5900X / X570 AORUS PRO/ 2x16GB Corsair Vengeance 3600CL18 (OCed to CL16)/ RTX3080 Gigabyte EAGLE GPU/ Phanteks P600S case / Customized Watercooling Eisbaer 280mm + Eiswolf2 360mm + VPP755 pump  and 150mm reservoir0.5TB Sabrent Rocket + 2TB WD SN850 NVme Gen4 + 4TB Toshiba X300 HDD drives/ Corsair RM850x PSU/ 34" 120Hz 3440x1440p Alienware AW3420DW monitor / Logitech G915TKL keyboard (wireless) / Logitech G PRO X Superlight mouse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PDifolco said:

Well, reliabilty as per "average time before failure" is unknown for those recent drives, so not a criteria...

Regarding write counts both of my Gen4 NVme (a Sabrent Rocket 4 and a WD SN850) report they'll last more than 50 years (normal gaming PC usage), so neither is it a criteria !! 🙂

Only thing worth mentioning is that the fastest 7GB/sec drives tend to get quite hot (80C+ in torture test) and need heatsink and room to breathe (so putting them under a GPU is not recommended)

The thing about SSDs is it’s not time based with them. (Not reads, just writes)  It’s number of writes based.  SSDs (or sd cards for that matter) make crappy archiving systems because the data on them fades as they age if they’re not powered. It takes a LOT longer than ram, but it still happens.  They’re fine in used electronics though. In 500years an SSD that got buried might work ok, but it wouldn’t have any data on it.

Edited by Bombastinator

Not a pro, not even very good.  I’m just old and have time currently.  Assuming I know a lot about computers can be a mistake.

 

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

The thing about SSDs is it’s not time based with them. (Not reads, just writes)  It’s number of writes based.  SSDs (or sd cards for that matter) make crappy archiving systems because the data on them fades as they age if they’re not powered. It takes a LOT longer than ram, but it still happens.  They’re fine in used electronics though. In 500years an SSD that got buried might work ok, but it wouldn’t have any data on it.

I know, but that's not the question, nothing short of marble slabs will still be readable in 500 years, but who cares ?? 🙂

 

System : AMD R9 5900X / X570 AORUS PRO/ 2x16GB Corsair Vengeance 3600CL18 (OCed to CL16)/ RTX3080 Gigabyte EAGLE GPU/ Phanteks P600S case / Customized Watercooling Eisbaer 280mm + Eiswolf2 360mm + VPP755 pump  and 150mm reservoir0.5TB Sabrent Rocket + 2TB WD SN850 NVme Gen4 + 4TB Toshiba X300 HDD drives/ Corsair RM850x PSU/ 34" 120Hz 3440x1440p Alienware AW3420DW monitor / Logitech G915TKL keyboard (wireless) / Logitech G PRO X Superlight mouse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PDifolco said:

I know, but that's not the question, nothing short of marble slabs will still be readable in 500 years, but who cares ?? 🙂

 

People 500 years from now if there are any.  The same was true of the pyramids when they were built.  Magnetic media is better.  There were a few technologies that would be archival.  Dataglyphs were as long lasting as the paper and ink they were printed with.  There was also a thing that was not completely unlike a punchcard but with a LOT more holes that never got off the ground. Ironic that written paper will outlast most electronic data. I’ve got a chicken sculpture in my house from something like 500ad.  It’s made of wrought iron. 

Not a pro, not even very good.  I’m just old and have time currently.  Assuming I know a lot about computers can be a mistake.

 

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: funny marker. I also wonder how wrought iron would have lasted so long.  The thing would have had to be reconstituted out of iron oxide. An expensive process.  Perhaps it’s a fake.  There is a bunch of missing material on the beak.  The wax protecting it is turn of the 20th century.  An old fake.  I like it mostly because it seems a very proud chicken, and my dad made the base for it before I was born.  The base wouldn’t be much without the chicken though.   The only thing I actually dated was a piece of a frieze of a Buddha that apparently came from India and was hammered off some temple or shrine or other.  It’s apparently 15th century but it’s stone so it doesn’t count.  It’s apparently not valuable enough to bother with repatriation.  The reply I got was “India’s got a lot of old temples”. I guess what I’m trying to say is that all our every day stuff will eventually become ancient, and there will still be archeologists. (If again humanity lives that long which is looking doubtful at this point)

Edited by Bombastinator

Not a pro, not even very good.  I’m just old and have time currently.  Assuming I know a lot about computers can be a mistake.

 

Life is like a bowl of chocolates: there are all these little crinkly paper cups everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×