Choosing SSD

[Chikensoops]

Any suggestions for 2 ssds(one boot, one storage)? Storage has to be at least 1tb and boot can stay under/at 250gb. Price can't exceed 150 USD. Right now looking at the XPG SX8200 Pro 1tb and Samsung 980 Pro 250gb for a total of 130 USD. Thank you.

[Makaroni]

36 minutes ago, Chikensoops said:

Any suggestions for 2 ssds(one boot, one storage)? Storage has to be at least 1tb and boot can stay under/at 250gb. Price can't exceed 150 USD. Right now looking at the XPG SX8200 Pro 1tb and Samsung 980 Pro 250gb for a total of 130 USD. Thank you.

What country and what currency?

Are you looking for the secondary ssd to be NVMe or will you also be okay with SATA?

[Chikensoops]

8 minutes ago, Makaroni said:

What country and what currency?

Are you looking for the secondary ssd to be NVMe or will you also be okay with SATA?

Indonesia, Rupiah. 

 

Very much prefer NVMe, but if it has to come down to it, SATA is fine. I'd like to stay away from SATA if possible

[Makaroni]

6 minutes ago, Chikensoops said:

Indonesia, Rupiah. 

 

Very much prefer NVMe, but if it has to come down to it, SATA is fine. I'd like to stay away from SATA if possible

the difference between a SATA SSD and a 3rd gen NVMe SSD is minimal so maybe look at Crucial MX 500? it could potentially be cheaper while having the same quality to store games on.

Games benefit from moving to an SSD but that is about it the difference between them working on a SSD vs NVMe shows about 1 to 2 seconds of load time decrease

[Chikensoops]

2 minutes ago, Makaroni said:

the difference between a SATA SSD and a 3rd gen NVMe SSD is minimal so maybe look at Crucial MX 500? it could potentially be cheaper while having the same quality to store games on.

Games benefit from moving to an SSD but that is about it the difference between them working on a SSD vs NVMe shows about 1 to 2 seconds of load time decrease

Ok I know it sounds stupid, but I just don't like the idea of sata cables. Had quite a few bad experiences with them, and even though minimal, there's just extra hassle to set it up compared to an nvme. I am completely fine with m.2 sata though. I just don't like the cables. 

 

pls dont mad at my stupid

[Poinkachu]

5 minutes ago, Chikensoops said:

Ok I know it sounds stupid, but I just don't like the idea of sata cables. Had quite a few bad experiences with them, and even though minimal, there's just extra hassle to set it up compared to an nvme. I am completely fine with m.2 sata though. I just don't like the cables. 

 

pls dont mad at my stupid

What is your CPU & Motherboard ?

[Chikensoops]

8 minutes ago, Poinkachu said:

What is your CPU & Motherboard ?

5600x 

TUF b550m-e WiFi

 

I dont have these yet, this is planning for a future build.

[mariushm]

Make an effort to NOT have a 250 GB SSD for boot / operating system. Even though it's enough in theory for the operating system and a few programs, any SSD with only 250 GB will be crippled and will have low performance. 

It's kind of like difference between a single stick of memory and using 2 or 4 sticks of memory - you get increased performance because the computer can read and write from two or more sticks at the same time. 

These days flash memory manufacturers try to make as big flash memory chips as possible, they're now making 1 Tb (125 GB) dies made out of up to 232 layers arranged in 6 planes : https://www.anandtech.com/show/17509/microns-232-layer-nand-now-shipping

The 250 GB SSDs will use several generations old flash memory chips that are barely using 64-96 layers and just 1-2 planes.

A plane is like a memory channel, each plane can be accessed independently, so such memory chip can get much higher speeds. 

A small 250 GB SSD would have memory chips with few planes, crippling ssd performance, or will be made with flash memory chips that have a lot of layers with defects (basically they take 2 350-400 GB flash chip to get a total of around 300 GB usable and sell you that drive as a 250 GB SSD.

 

You don't HAVE to use a separate drive for the operating system, and a separate drive for storage. You can just make partitions (ex a 200-400 GB partition for the OS, and the rest for storage)

Nowadays, you can get a 1 TB TLC based SSD for under $100  - for example WD Blue SA510 using TLC and with 400 TB endurance is 97$ where I live (including VAT). The Kingston NV1 which uses shitty QLC that gives it only 240 TB endurance is cheaper at $84

 

Also , Samsung 870 QVO 2 TB  SATA (QLC but decent with 720 TB endurance) is around $180 here. Kingston NV1 2 TB nvme is around 165$ but has only 480 TB endurance.

SATA cables are cheap and quite reliable, maybe you weren't lucky.

[aryanpall]

56 minutes ago, Chikensoops said:

5600x 

TUF b550m-e WiFi

 

I dont have these yet, this is planning for a future build.

i have a crucial mx500 and im very new new to building and i did this in 3 minutes and the sata cable cost me 2 GBP, trust me youll be fine, the hardest part for me was to screw back on the back platets of the case 

[Chikensoops]

2 hours ago, mariushm said:

maybe you weren't lucky.

Yea you’re right. Probably all of the problems are just bad luck, but also what i meant by hassle is cable management. It’s not much but still though. Most of the problems is just the cable slightly falls out from time to time and I just need to nudge it back into place. I’ve replaced the cables a bunch of times to make sure. Different qualities and price too. All happened. Bought my ssd brand new so it probably wasn’t wear and tear on the connector. Wasnt just my ssd either, also happened to my hdd a bunch of times. My case doesn’t even vibrate much too.

1 hour ago, aryanpall said:

sata cable cost me 2 GBP

That is one expensive sata cable. Here they literally give you free sata cables. For 2GBP you could get a whole box of them.

 

I’m still gonna opt for NVMe. Just because.

[Chikensoops]

14 hours ago, mariushm said:

Make an effort to NOT have a 250 GB SSD for boot / operating system. Even though it's enough in theory for the operating system and a few programs, any SSD with only 250 GB will be crippled and will have low performance. 

It's kind of like difference between a single stick of memory and using 2 or 4 sticks of memory - you get increased performance because the computer can read and write from two or more sticks at the same time. 

These days flash memory manufacturers try to make as big flash memory chips as possible, they're now making 1 Tb (125 GB) dies made out of up to 232 layers arranged in 6 planes : https://www.anandtech.com/show/17509/microns-232-layer-nand-now-shipping

The 250 GB SSDs will use several generations old flash memory chips that are barely using 64-96 layers and just 1-2 planes.

A plane is like a memory channel, each plane can be accessed independently, so such memory chip can get much higher speeds. 

A small 250 GB SSD would have memory chips with few planes, crippling ssd performance, or will be made with flash memory chips that have a lot of layers with defects (basically they take 2 350-400 GB flash chip to get a total of around 300 GB usable and sell you that drive as a 250 GB SSD.

 

You don't HAVE to use a separate drive for the operating system, and a separate drive for storage. You can just make partitions (ex a 200-400 GB partition for the OS, and the rest for storage)

Nowadays, you can get a 1 TB TLC based SSD for under $100  - for example WD Blue SA510 using TLC and with 400 TB endurance is 97$ where I live (including VAT). The Kingston NV1 which uses shitty QLC that gives it only 240 TB endurance is cheaper at $84

 

Also , Samsung 870 QVO 2 TB  SATA (QLC but decent with 720 TB endurance) is around $180 here. Kingston NV1 2 TB nvme is around 165$ but has only 480 TB endurance.

SATA cables are cheap and quite reliable, maybe you weren't lucky.

Ok so how about a SP A80 1tb, and SX8200 Pro 512gb?