What SSD should I go for as a boot up drive?

N

ngc1967

New Member
If I want to have an SSD drive solely to boot up Windows 7 with another 2TB SATA HDD to store all my other stuff (photos documents music films etc.) Is there any real need to go for an SSD greater than 64GB in size and if so, why?

Also does it really matter about the Write speed if it is just for Windows boot up. For example Samsung 840 has Read of about 530MB/s and Write of about 130MB/s where as Crucial or Corsair do some that are about 500MB/s for both read and write. Is it that necessary to go for a higher write speed or should I go for a higher write speed anyway (and pay the extra)?
 
I have a 60GB boot SSD. Fully-updated Win7 and I still have about 20GB remaining. The next build I'll get something a bit larger, probably in the 80-100 range just to future-proof it a bit more. As far as the speeds go, I'm running a OCZ Vertex 3 (not the best, not the worst - very good mid-range drive even for today) and Windows still loads in about 7-8 seconds after I select it from the bootloader.

You don't necessarily need a higher write speed, just keep your eyes open for a good price on a drive and nitpick the specs from there. FWIW, if this will be your first boot SSD (you're used to platter drives at any RPM for your OS) then any SSD will be a hugely noticeable improvement.
 
I've found that a 120gb works best for me. But have got burned out on them for the performance/price and size ratio. Sold mine. I've uesd a few Seagate Momentus XT and really liked them. Getting ready to install a 750gb one and it only runs 139 bucks vs. 129 bucks for a 120gb SSD. Plus you have the room to install on it and not worry about space. As far as boot up times, could not tell the difference between the two. But it did take a couple of boot ups for the XT NAND flash to get the data saved for fast boots. Be sure you get a model that has 8GB SLC NAND flash.
.
 
I think 120GB is a good size for most SSD's. I recommend the Intel 520 series.
 
The Intel SSDs are expensive, hence why I tend to recommend SanDisk, Samsung and OCZ.

120GB is the smallest size I'd want to go, but next time I'd like to get at least 240GB. The price of the 120GB and 240GB SSDs are coming down now, so really there's no reason to buy less than 120GB.

When I got my first SSD two years ago (a Crucial M4 128GB), it cost £160. Now you can get those 128GB M4s for about £80 or so, so half the price I paid two years ago.
 
Thanks for the replies.

The general opinion is to go for 120GB.

I was looking at the costs per GB and the 60/64GB SSDs work out at about £0.80-£0.90 per GB where as the 120/128GB SSDs work out at about £0.60-£0.70 per GB so it's most cost effective to go for the 120GB (but then again they are £20-£30 dearer.)

I think I will go for the 120GB or 128GB range but which one? (the details below have been cut and pasted so I'm affraid it's just technical jargon to me - what is IOPS?)

120GB Samsung 840 Series (£75-£80) - Maximum Read: 530MB/sec, Maximum Write: 130MB/sec, 85,000 IOPS, Controller: 3-core MDX, NAND: Toggle NAND, Cache: 256MB

120GB Crucial M500 (£85-£90) - Read Speed: 500MB/Sec, Write Speed: 130MB/Sec, 62,000 IOPS, Controller: Marvell,

128GB Plextor M5S (£90) - Maximum Read: 520MB/sec, Maximum Write: 200MB/sec, 71,000 IOPS, Controller: Marvell,

Sandisk 128GB Pulse (£75) - Read 480MB/s Write 380MB/s - Random Read/Write: 8000/2100 IOPS

Kingston 120GB HyperX 3K (£75) - Read = 555MB/s, Write = 510MB/s

OCZ 128GB Agility 4 (£75) - Read 400MB/s Write 300MB/s - Indilinx Everest 2 Controller - Max 4K Random Write 72K IOPS

The Kingston seems to be the best value for the speeds but are they any good?

Can anyone recommend any of these?
 
spirit said:
The Intel SSDs are expensive, hence why I tend to recommend SanDisk, Samsung and OCZ.

120GB is the smallest size I'd want to go, but next time I'd like to get at least 240GB. The price of the 120GB and 240GB SSDs are coming down now, so really there's no reason to buy less than 120GB.

When I got my first SSD two years ago (a Crucial M4 128GB), it cost £160. Now you can get those 128GB M4s for about £80 or so, so half the price I paid two years ago.
Click to expand...

For great quality I don't think $149 is expensive. Newegg usually has it on sale now and again for $129.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167095
 
The Intel 520 120GB is available on a website in the UK for £100 (including VAT and Free Delivery) - just checked currency conversion its $153

How does it compare to the Kingston as that is £25 ($37) cheaper and roughly the same speeds. Is it worth paying the extra? (i.e. Are Intel widely known as the most reliable and 'best' SSDs you can get?)
 
Last edited:
Intel's SSDs are reliable, but then again most SSDs are. If you can get a Kingston which is just as fast as the Intel for less, go with the Kingston. They're a great brand.

The Samsung 840 Pro is also worth looking into.
 
Thanks, I've seen the Kingston 120GB HyperX 3K for only £75

Specifications
Controller SandForce® SF-2281
Components MLC NAND (3k P/E Cycles)
Interface SATA Rev 3.0 (6Gb/s), SATA Rev 2.0 (3Gb/s)
Sequential reads SATA-III – 555MB/s
Sequential writes SATA-III – 510MB/s
Sustained random 4K R/W
120GB – 20,000/60,000 IOPS
Max. random 4K R/W
120GB – 85,000/73,000 IOPS
PCMARK Vantage HDD Suite Score 60,000
Supports SMART, TRIM, and Garbage Collection
Power consumption 0.455 W (TYP) idle / 1.58 W (TYP) read / 2.11 W C


The Samsung Pro is approx. £100 (the same as the Intel 520) - I can pay the extra if it's worth paying it but if the Kingston is a good SSD then I'm swaying towards that.

Also the Kingston has £25 off according to a particular website (so it should normally be about £100 - i.e the same as the other two above). Its probably a misleading sales ploy but it makes you think that you are getting an SSD with similar performance and reliability as the others for a lot less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top