Is this SSD good?

[ripper101]

So I really only have $90 on hand and I've been looking for a 500GB SSD for a while now since my 1TB hard drive is nearing 700GB used and I have always had my eye on a Samsung EVO but the price was never right for me. So this SSD is being advertised on this forum and it's at the perfect price for me. Comparing the EVO and this ADATA drive the read and write speed are both above 500MB/s and am wondering what the difference would be (my guess is reliability or something...). I am looking to put Windows 10 and my favorite games and programs that I would like to boot fast and use the 1TB hardrive I have now to store games I don't play as much. So basically what I am wondering is can I get this SSD and not have to worry about it failing or something and have increased speeds within my PC and what I would be missing out on versus getting a Samsung EVO drive for 70 dollars more.

It also has a 3 year warranty on it

[Enderman]

well personally i would never buy any SSD other than samsung or intel for reliability

all SSDs have pretty much the same 500+MBps speeds

but only some SSDs will have that speed after years of use and thousands of GBs of writes

 

I dont want to lose my data from a dead SSD, or have to replace it after 3 years from slow speeds, so I spent more money on a samsung one

[PlayStation 2]

It's not the best SSD, let me get that out of the way.

That being said, it is a damn good budget SSD. Would I get a 500GB one of those? No because I don't need one. But I think you should be alright with one.

[dizmo]

22 minutes ago, Enderman said:

well personally i would never buy any SSD other than samsung or intel for reliability

all SSDs have pretty much the same 500+MBps speeds

but only some SSDs will have that speed after years of use and thousands of GBs of writes

 

I dont want to lose my data from a dead SSD, or have to replace it after 3 years from slow speeds, so I spent more money on a samsung one

Actually there are huge differences between most SSD's out there...and not all get close to their rated speeds.

[STRMfrmXMN]

8 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Actually there are huge differences between most SSD's out there...and not all get close to their rated speeds.

Samsung and Intel have stricter manufacturing processes that allows their SSDs (which are all generally high end) to perform fairly consistently between them. My Sandisk Ultra Plus, one of Sandisk's lower end drives, reads at SATA 6 gbps limits which is extremely abnormal for that drive, which shows that Sandisk didn't have the tightest of regulations making that one.

 

43 minutes ago, ripper101 said:

So I really only have $90 on hand and I've been looking for a 500GB SSD for a while now since my 1TB hard drive is nearing 700GB used and I have always had my eye on a Samsung EVO but the price was never right for me. So this SSD is being advertised on this forum and it's at the perfect price for me. Comparing the EVO and this ADATA drive the read and write speed are both above 500MB/s and am wondering what the difference would be (my guess is reliability or something...). I am looking to put Windows 10 and my favorite games and programs that I would like to boot fast and use the 1TB hardrive I have now to store games I don't play as much. So basically what I am wondering is can I get this SSD and not have to worry about it failing or something and have increased speeds within my PC and what I would be missing out on versus getting a Samsung EVO drive for 70 dollars more.

It also has a 3 year warranty on it

I've recommended that drive several times. It's one of the slowest A-DATA drives and doesn't have very fast write speeds (on par with a minutely fast hard drive) so I would recommend the PNY CS1311 or OCZ Trion 150 over it, but it's not a bad SSD.

 

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that if you have adblock off this SSD is the one advertised on this forum's top right

[dizmo]

7 minutes ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

Samsung and Intel have stricter manufacturing processes that allows their SSDs (which are all generally high end) to perform fairly consistently between them. My Sandisk Ultra Plus, one of Sandisk's lower end drives, reads at SATA 6 gbps limits which is extremely abnormal for that drive, which shows that Sandisk didn't have the tightest of regulations making that one.

 

 

I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

I wasn't being specific about Intel or Samsung drives, but all SSD's in general.

Not every drive claiming xxxmb/s speeds will achieve them.

[Enderman]

17 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Actually there are huge differences between most SSD's out there...and not all get close to their rated speeds.

almost all of them do get 450+MBps , unless you're talking about some cheap chinese no name brand SSD

the thing is that not all of them will keep those speeds over time

[STRMfrmXMN]

3 minutes ago, dizmo said:

I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

I wasn't being specific about Intel or Samsung drives, but all SSD's in general.

Not every drive claiming xxxmb/s speeds will achieve them.

I gotcha, was also adding to it.

[leadeater]

46 minutes ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that if you have adblock off this SSD is the one advertised on this forum's top right

I had no idea this forum has advertising lol. Installing an adblocker is about one of the first things I do when I install Windows.

Edited June 26, 2016 by leadeater

[STRMfrmXMN]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

You know I had no idea this forum had advertising lol. Installing an adblocker is about one of the first things I do when I install Windows.

And you're a staff member here too!

[leadeater]

21 minutes ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

And you're a staff member here too!

*cough* shhhh *cough*.... nothing to see here move along. haha.

 

On topic the only SSDs I use are from Samsung. I have I think 10 in total across all my devices ranging from 120GB EVO's through to 512GB Pros, mostly 512GB 850 Pros. I like the fact that every part in them is from Samsung, controller, NAND, DRAM all of it Samsung.

 

I also looked very closely at the reviews from the more enterprise reviewers and took note of the very consistent read and write latency, best you will find that doesn't have a SAS interface and even better than some of those. Important for me since most of mine are in my server which was running hardware RAID but I now use Storage Spaces.

 

I do have 1 A-DATA 120GB SSD in my offsite backup server paired with a 250GB 840 EVO, but only reason I have it was from a clearance sale for a very good price. Works fine and no issues but only been using it for a few months, BUT it's TBW is currently at ~60TB and if you know anything about SSDs that is a hell of a lot for a low end model.

Edited June 26, 2016 by leadeater

[scottyseng]

2 hours ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

My Sandisk Ultra Plus, one of Sandisk's lower end drives, reads at SATA 6 gbps limits which is extremely abnormal for that drive, which shows that Sandisk didn't have the tightest of regulations making that one.

Interesting. I've bought one Sandisk Extreme 2, and two Sandisk Extreme Pros, and they run like tanks still / very consistent speeds even when I'm having them half filled most of the time. My cousin unfortunately got nailed by that 840 performance bug even with the latest patch... However, with the Samsung 850 series, they've really got it good. I've installed probably over 5 evos in various PC builds for friends and none have had issues. I also have a Crucial M500 and a Plextor M2P (Plextor kind of died off in the SSD market) and they've all been running great. I kind of buy SanDisk now to be special since everyone gets Samsung (Not that I can blame them either though, Samsung has performance for dollar nailed down with the evo). haha.

[ripper101]

3 hours ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that if you have adblock off this SSD is the one advertised on this forum's top right

3 hours ago, ripper101 said:

So this SSD is being advertised on this forum and it's at the perfect price for me.

[maulemall]

MLC is better than TLC unless it's 3d nand TLC.

Don't you guys watch any of Linus videos.

 I will not buy TLC and unless it has 2.000.000 hrs mtbf then you are wasting your money.

 

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, maulemall said:

MLC is better than TLC unless it's 3d nand TLC.

Don't you guys watch any of Linus videos.

 I will not buy TLC and unless it has 2.000.000 hrs mtbf then you are wasting your money.

 

If your doing very few writes or have low usage in general TLC will never be an issue. Putting an 850 Pro in my AMD E1 laptop would be a huge waste compared to a TLC SSD. An average user will run out of storage space before MTBF or write wear of any storage technology, SSD or HDD, will become an issue. Not to mention for SSDs MTBF is much less useful than the TBW rating, I've written 60TB to my A-DATA SP610 120GB in a few months which is more than most users will do in 3-5 years.

 

TLC does not mean bad and MLC does not mean good. There have been plenty of bad MLC SSDs over the development of SSD technology.

 

Just because something is technically inferior than something else does not make it unusable, just be aware of its limits and use as applicable.

 

 

[maulemall]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

If your doing very few writes or have low usage in general TLC will never be an issue. Putting an 850 Pro in my AMD E1 laptop would be a huge waste compared to a TLC SSD. An average user will run out of storage space before MTBF or write wear of any storage technology, SSD or HDD, will become an issue. Not to mention for SSDs MTBF is much less useful than the TBW rating, I've written 60TB to my A-DATA SP610 120GB in a few months which is more than most users will do in 3-5 years.

 

TLC does not mean bad and MLC does not mean good. There have been plenty of bad MLC SSDs over the development of SSD technology.

 

Just because something is technically inferior than something else does not make it unusable, just be aware of its limits and use as applicable.

 

 

TLC does mean bad if it is less reliable than MLC. All low level tier SSDs are TLC. All Mid level SSDs are MLC.

The reason that MLC are more expensive (Albeit around $10.00) is proof that they are more reliable and that people are willing to pay for that reliability.

And although you say there have been a lot of bad MLC SSDs most of the problems I have seen came from the controller. Hardly the fault of the Multi layer.

 

And to say that an SSD that is warrantied to last 3.5 times is a wasted expense is 100% incorrect. Even if you went with a SANDISC PRO SSD you still have 10 year warranty which is still 3.5 TIMES the warranty of a TLC SSD and the fact that you can remove it from 1 laptop and throw it into another means that it will undoubtedly outlast your laptop and continue on in another.

 The only thing you get when buying the lower tier tools are headaches.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, maulemall said:

TLC does mean bad if it is less reliable than MLC. All low level tier SSDs are TLC. All Mid level SSDs are MLC.

The reason that MLC are more expensive (Albeit around $10.00) is proof that they are more reliable and that people are willing to pay for that reliability.

And although you say there have been a lot of bad MLC SSDs most of the problems I have seen came from the controller. Hardly the fault of the Multi layer.

 

And to say that an SSD that is warrantied to last 3.5 times is a wasted expense is 100% incorrect. Even if you went with a SANDISC PRO SSD you still have 10 year warranty which is still 3.5 TIMES the warranty of a TLC SSD and the fact that you can remove it from 1 laptop and throw it into another means that it will undoubtedly outlast your laptop and continue on in another.

 The only thing you get when buying the lower tier tools are headaches.

 

Well we can agree to disagree but I would only say TLC is a lower quality by design, not bad. Also you never mentioned warranty in your previous post, which MTBF does not directly equate to the warranty period a manufacture may decide to give a product. There are MLC SSDs being sold today with 3 year warranties. Go have a look at the MTBF of the much older 500GB HDDs which literally millions are still running today.

 

Have you even done the math on 2 million hours, 228 years. So how many years is 1 million? Utterly meaningless rating. There is a reason all enterprise SSD are rated in  DWPD and don't bother listing MTBF.

 

No one here ever said MLC was not better than TLC, clearly it is. But we all don't go round buying Xeon processors, ECC ram, dual power supplies and quadro graphics cards either which are all technically superior to consumer gaming parts if we are talking warranty and MTBF. There are plenty of things in life we choose to buy due to cost concerns as not everyone is in the same financial situation.

 

If there was no market for TLC SSDs then they would not exist. Also in larger capacities the price difference is much more than $10.

[maulemall]

I think that you proved my point here.

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

No one here ever said MLC was not better than TLC, clearly it is.

 

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, maulemall said:

I think that you proved my point here.

What I disagreed with was you saying anyone buying a TLC SSD is wasting their money. Buying a TLC SSD is a perfectly valid decision under the correct circumstances. If you thought I was discussing if TLC or MLC was better then that certainly was not the case, I may have proved your point but that wasn't at all what I was trying to point out.

[maulemall]

11 minutes ago, leadeater said:

What I disagreed with was you saying anyone buying a TLC SSD is wasting their money. Buying a TLC SSD is a perfectly valid decision under the correct circumstances. If you thought I was discussing if TLC or MLC was better then that certainly was not the case, I may have proved your point but that wasn't at all what I was trying to point out.

TLC is wasting your money. If reliability and your data have any value at all then TLC is a TERRIBLE purchase and one that should be avoided at all cost.

But personal opinions are subjective.

I personally don't buy inferior tools.

I don't buy inferior parts for my car and I don't buy inferior things for my home.

Why would I purchase an inferior part so integral to my computer as well as my business and memories?

 

 

 

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, maulemall said:

TLC is wasting your money. If reliability and your data have any value at all then TLC is a TERRIBLE purchase and one that should be avoided at all cost.

But personal opinions are subjective.

I personally don't buy inferior tools.

I don't buy inferior parts for my car and I don't buy things for my home.

Why would I purchase an inferior part so integral to my computer as well as my business and memories?

 

 

 

http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead

 

Quote

Few expected a TLC SSD to last that long—and fewer still would have bet on it outlasting two MLC-based drives. Intel's 335 Series failed much earlier, though to be fair, it pulled the trigger itself. The drive's media wear indicator ran out shortly after 700TB

You seem to have vastly incorrect impression of TLC reliability which I can see is the cause of your opinion. It's fine I'm not saying you should change your stance on buying MLC as it is a good thing to do but I bet it is far from as doom as you think it is. If you can write even a quarter of the amount the first SSD in this test failed at in 10 years I would be impressed, and say lay off the benchmarks . 

 

Also an SSD of twice the size will last about twice as long, it is a rather old parts being tested.

[maulemall]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead

 

You seem to have vastly incorrect impression of TLC reliability which I can see is the cause of your opinion. It's fine I'm not saying you should change your stance on buying MLC as it is a good thing to do but I bet it is far from as doom as you think it is. If you can write even a quarter of the amount the first SSD in this test failed at in 10 years I would be impressed, and say lay off the benchmarks . 

 

Also an SSD of twice the size will last about twice as long, it is a rather old parts being tested.

You are not simplifying your thought process enough. (I am a simple guy)

Why waste money on something you admit and exclaim is inferior.

If you can give a reason other than It cost less then I would love to hear it.

 

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, maulemall said:

You are not simplifying your thought process enough. (I am a simple guy)

Why waste money on something you admit and exclaim is inferior.

If you can give a reason other than It cost less then I would love to hear it.

 

Problem is I can't, cost is the main reason which is why TLC even exists. When someone is looking at a 500GB or more in size they can be rather expensive so the cost/GB difference starts to show a larger difference in the total actual buy price.

 

OCZ Trion 150 480 GB (TLC): $110

OCZ Vector 180 480GB (MLC): $140

Samsung 850 Evo 500GB (3D-TLC): $160, $280NZD or $200USD

Samsung 850 Pro 512GB (3D-MLC) : $220, $400NZD or $285USD

Sample from newegg, NZ prices from http://www.computerlounge.co.nz/components/componentlist.asp?parttypeid=393&t=25

 

Purely going just for the best technology can cost quite a bit more. Even going from just TLC to MLC is almost 30% more and TLC to 3D-TLC is 45% more. Also not every country has as good pricing (See above for NZ).

 

I can personally afford 850 Pros, in fact I have 4 512GB 850 Pros and 2 512GB 840 Pros, but I have friends who can barely afford an SSD at all and some of whom their entire computer is one of my old ones I have given them. 

 

[maulemall]

OCZ is a weird duck... Since Toshiba bought them (32 million, The steal of the century) they have had to do some thing with all the old stock that's The TLC... Samsung on the other hand is killing it with the 3D Nand and they have solved their TLC but that's proprietary and nobody else is going to be able to execute their solution.

 

Back to OCZ and Toshiba, Their return system for their SSDs is probably the best I have seen and recommend it to anyone who does purchase a TLC SSD.

http://ocz.com/us/support/advanced-warranty

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, maulemall said:

OCZ is a weird duck... Since Toshiba bought them (32 million, The steal of the century) they have had to do some thing with all the old stock that's The TLC... Samsung on the other hand is killing it with the 3D Nand and they have solved their TLC but that's proprietary and nobody else is going to be able to execute their solution.

 

Back to OCZ and Toshiba, Their return system for their SSDs is probably the best I have seen and recommend it to anyone who does purchase a TLC SSD.

http://ocz.com/us/support/advanced-warranty

Yea Samsung really did get the jump on everyone, in a huge way. Intel and Micron are only now just getting 3D NAND in to products, Crucial MX300 for example which is 3D-TLC.