Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #534364 > unrolled thread

Re: Even the cheapest SSD lasts "a lifetime" (for me).

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Even the cheapest SSD lasts "a lifetime" (for me). dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-21 09:14 -0500
    Re: Having _everything_ on a mostly empty "C:" drive. dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-21 15:35 -0500
      Re: Having _everything_ on a mostly empty "C:" drive. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-21 22:34 +0100
        540 MegaBytes/Second reading, 520 writing, Max. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-11-21 13:46 -0800
          Re: 540 MegaBytes/Second reading, 520 writing, Max. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-21 23:13 +0100
            540 MegaBytes/Second reading, 520 writing, Max. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-11-21 15:25 -0800

#534364 — Re: Even the cheapest SSD lasts "a lifetime" (for me).

On 11/21/2015 7:18 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> I wrote: > I ordered this $440 terabyte SSD: Samsung 850 Pro, SATA III >
>  >
> samsung.COM/global/business/semiconductor/minisite/SSD/global/html/ssd850pro/specifications.html
>  >
> Amazon.COM/gp/product/B00LF10KTE?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00
> Lucky for me, Amazon canceled my order (out of stock); So I ordered:
> Samsung 850 EVO, SATA III, 1 TeraByte, $349 (no tax, free shipping)
> Samsung.COM/global/business/semiconductor/minisite/SSD/global/html/ssd850evo/specifications.html
> NewEgg.COM/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA2W02DV8168 It's $90 cheaper and
> the only difference is the warranty; for me, even the cheapest SSD lasts
> "a lifetime", so paying $90 more for the Pro version doesn't make sense.
> Last 3 years (36 months), I've yet to have an error on my current SSD (
> 256 gig OCZ Vertex 4 ). To clone the SSD, I'll use Samsung's "Install
> Navigator". The 850 EVO has a 1 gig RAM buffer, a 3 core CPU/controller,
> and I can add 4 gigs of system memory to the buffer, thanks to "RAPID
> Mode" in "Magician". I have 16 gigs of RAM. When idle, it consumes .05
> Watts.

Why aren't you keeping the OCZ as your boot drive and using the new one 
for data?

-- 
dvus

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#534405 — Re: Having _everything_ on a mostly empty "C:" drive.

On 11/21/2015 10:00 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You (@dvus) asked me:

>> Why aren't you keeping the OCZ as your boot drive
>> and using the new one [Samsung 850 EVO] for data?

> I enjoy the
> sense of freedom and simplicity I get from having _everything_ on a
> mostly empty "C:" drive. A TeraByte is _far_ more than I'll need, next 4
> years. I back up to a 128 gig USB3 thumb drive; although it's half as
> fast as my SSD, it's more portable. Likely, I'll give the "OCZ Vertex 4"
> to a friend; she'll love it, I'm sure.

I'm sure she will. Enjoy your new drive.

-- 
dvus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534418 — Re: Having _everything_ on a mostly empty "C:" drive.

dvus wrote:

> On 11/21/2015 10:00 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>> You (@dvus) asked me:
> 
>>> Why aren't you keeping the OCZ as your boot drive
>>> and using the new one [Samsung 850 EVO] for data?
> 
>> I enjoy the
>> sense of freedom and simplicity I get from having _everything_ on a
>> mostly empty "C:" drive. A TeraByte is _far_ more than I'll need, next 4
>> years. I back up to a 128 gig USB3 thumb drive; although it's half as
>> fast as my SSD, it's more portable. Likely, I'll give the "OCZ Vertex 4"
>> to a friend; she'll love it, I'm sure.

If a USB3 thumb drive is half as fast as your SSD, you certainly have a real 
crappy SSD

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534426 — 540 MegaBytes/Second reading, 520 writing, Max.

Peter_Köhlmann told me:
> If a USB3 thumb drive is half as fast as your SSD, 
> you certainly have a real crappy SSD

My $99 (14 months ago), 128 Gig, USB_3 SanDisk Extreme Pro is:

  260 MegaBytes/Second reading, 240 writing, Max.

My $350 TeraByte Samsung 850 EVO SSD is:

  540 MegaBytes/Second reading, 520 writing, Max.
  Samsung.COM/global/business/semiconductor/minisite/SSD/global/html/ssd850evo/specifications.html

Sata III is the limiting factor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534430 — Re: 540 MegaBytes/Second reading, 520 writing, Max.

 wrote:

> Peter_Köhlmann told me:
>> If a USB3 thumb drive is half as fast as your SSD,
>> you certainly have a real crappy SSD
> 
> My $99 (14 months ago), 128 Gig, USB_3 SanDisk Extreme Pro is:
> 
>   260 MegaBytes/Second reading, 240 writing, Max.
> 
> My $350 TeraByte Samsung 850 EVO SSD is:
> 
>   540 MegaBytes/Second reading, 520 writing, Max.
>   
Samsung.COM/global/business/semiconductor/minisite/SSD/global/html/ssd850evo/specifications.html
> 
> Sata III is the limiting factor.

And the sustained transfer rates

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534449 — 540 MegaBytes/Second reading, 520 writing, Max.

You (Peter_Köhlmann) replied (to me):
> > My $350 TeraByte Samsung 850 EVO SSD is:
> > 
> >   540 MegaBytes/Second reading, 520 writing, Max.
> >   Samsung.COM/global/business/semiconductor/minisite/SSD/global/html/ssd850evo/specifications.html
> > 
> > Sata III is the limiting factor.
> 
> And the sustained transfer rates ?

A one gig test (Samsung 850 EVO):

  http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2014/12/08/samsung-ssd-850-evo-review/4

I don't have my Samsung 850 EVO yet,
but I can tell you about my 3 year old "OCZ Vertex 4" SSD.

Testing 4 gigaBytes, it's:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0.4 x64 (C) 2007-2015 hiyohiyo
                           Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]

           Sequential Read :   465.104 MB/s
          Sequential Write :   410.081 MB/s
         Random Read 512KB :   337.857 MB/s
        Random Write 512KB :   411.990 MB/s
    Random Read 4KB (QD=1) :    36.124 MB/s [  8,819 IOPS]
   Random Write 4KB (QD=1) :   151.607 MB/s [ 37,013 IOPS]
   Random Read 4KB (QD=32) :   357.237 MB/s [ 87,216 IOPS]
  Random Write 4KB (QD=32) :   345.837 MB/s [ 84,432 IOPS]

  Test : 4000 MB [ C: 58% free (137/238 GB) ] (x1)
  Date : 2015/07/22 8:06:21
    OS : Windows 8  [6.2 Build 9200] (x64)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web