Best performing/value SSD or duo, at 40-100GB?

[jalyst]

The best in this capacity range atm is the OWC Mercury Extreme 50GB SSD right?
I'm aware it's $/GB is much higher than Indilinx & Postville based MLC's...

Considering it's $/GB is high, & if I want similar performance...
Then perhaps I should be looking at the X25-M, 2x X25-V's, or 2x Vertex 30GB (or similar)?

Then again I could always get one Mercury now and a 2nd one in 6mth....

It's for:
Ubuntu (stripped down) + MythTV (FE+BE) + XBMC/Boxee + Windows 7 MCE.
Pretty sure 25GB should be enough for all the *nix stuff, but not sure if 23GB will be enough "wiggle room" for Win7 & media apps.

There's a real dearth of forum debate/review surrounding OWC mercury.
I still have a few concerns about the maturity of it's firmware....

[SteveRo]

Based on all I have read - +1 on the owc 50.
Maybe check to see if the f/w can be upgraded

[Metroid]

Get 1x Intel X25-V and check how it performs then get some SSD experience and then get something better later on. The Intel X25-V is too cheap, perfect guinea pig.

[Ao1]

Best performing? X25-E 30GB.
Best value? = X25-V 40GB

[jalyst]

Best performing? X25-E 30GB.
Best value? = X25-V 40GB

Hmm didn't realise there was a 30GB X25-E....
But I suspect 30GB is tad too small, I really need 50GB+ to be on the safe side.

[Ao1]

I should have clarified performance as “proven” performance. The SandForce drives don’t fit into that category yet.
The X25 series drives have the best combination of cost/ performance and quality. You could spend a lot more only to find you end up with less.

[jalyst]

But what of this
http://www.anandtech.com/storage/sho...spx?i=3751&p=1
sounds pretty solid...

Definitely not the best value but if performance is all that matters...
Even if in real world use you're not going to notice the diff. between the x25-m 80GB and the mercury.

Not really convinced by a lot of the arguments groberts makes in this: OWC Mercury Extreme SSD's

I mean it may be crap value for someone keen for cost effective uber-performance via RAID set-ups.
But for just single drive scenarios......

[SteveRo]

Best performing? X25-E 30GB.
Best value? = X25-V 40GB

x25-e has competition now from sandforce-1500 based drives? maybe.
best value in a sandforce-1500 is probably owc 50 but at almost twice the cost of the x25-v.

[jalyst]

x25-e has competition now from sandforce-1500 based drives? maybe.
best value in a sandforce-1500 is probably owc 50 but at almost twice the cost of the x25-v.

Actually I've heard the 50GB is the worst value of the SF-1500 drives in terms of $/GB.
It wasn't initially but OWC raised the price slightly on it...
But that doesn't mean I'm gunna jump to a 100GB SF-1500, I just don't need that kinda space.
And all fairness one should be comparing the mercury and x25-m, should they not?

[SteveRo]

Not really convinced by a lot of the arguments groberts makes in this: OWC Mercury Extreme SSD's

I mean it may be crap value for someone keen for cost effective uber-performance via RAID set-ups.
But for just single drive scenarios......

ok - I read that - yes, gives one pause for thought.
Hopefully it is just one bad drive - he should call owc - they are supposed to have 5 year warrenty?

[SteveRo]

but in all fairness one should be comparing the mercury and x25-m, should they not?

or any sandforce-1500 against the x25-e? -

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=68&c=2

[Ao1]

Steve, the Sandforce looks better on paper; however performance in the field is looking really bad if the numerous reports form end users are to be believed. I’ve not seen one person rave about these drives; in fact it’s just the opposite.

[jalyst]

ok - I read that - yes, gives one pause for thought.
Hopefully it is just one bad drive - he should call owc - they are supposed to have 5 year warrenty?

yeah he seemed to be in way too much of a hurry to write it off imo.
He was more focussed on uber-RAID set-ups.....

Steve, the Sandforce looks better on paper; however performance in the field is looking really bad if the numerous reports form end users are to be believed. I’ve not seen one person rave about these drives; in fact it’s just the opposite.

Anandtech's "performance in the field" looked pretty good.
Any sources you can recall? Thanks

[Ao1]

Anandtech's "performance in the field" looked pretty good.
Any sources you can recall? Thanks

You pointed one out above. Check out OCZ's forum. Anandtech made a very specific point about long term performance. It's a gamble. So far the gamble does not seem to be paying off.

These drives are very different to other SSD's. Compression and lower quality nand due to better error correction.....

I'm not trying to pursued either way, just point out the facts. It would be good if someone on this forum got one so it could be better evaluated.

[jalyst]

We're getting close to when the vertex 2 should be released now anyway aren't we?
It's a 50GB SF-1500 (or is it SF-1200) and will prolly be notably cheaper...

You pointed one out above. Check out OCZ's forum. Anandtech made a very specific point about long term performance. It's a gamble. So far the gamble does not seem to be paying off.

These drives are very different to other SSD's. Compression and lower quality nand due to better error correction.....

I'm not trying to pursued either way, just point out the facts. It would be good if someone on this forum got one so it could be better evaluated.

Oh yeah I'm well aware of the points anandtech made...
But I've not yet seen a huge body of anecdotal evidence to suggest they're not holding-up LT, hence why I asked.

[Musho]

we're getting close to when the vertex 2 should be released now anyway aren't we?
It's a 50GB SF-1500 (or is it SF-1200) and will prolly be notably cheaper...

The Vertex 2 will use the SF-1200 controller. Not sure when it's going to be released, though.

[naokaji]

Just wait for the Vertex 2, with OCZ you can at least count on it that potential issues will eventually be addressed in firmware updates unlike other companies, or if you don't want to wait, grab a x25m.

[jalyst]

What interface does the x25-m use again, forgotten, it's SATA2 right?
Is it known to be hamstrung somewhat by it? (like in random bursts etc)
Apparently the SF-1500 MLC's would benefit from sata3, but as yet none of the OWC ones (at least) have been released with it.
Guess it won't really become mainstream till Intel starts to integrate it into their chipsets at the end of the yr.

Just wait for the Vertex 2, with OCZ you can at least count on it that potential issues will eventually be addressed in firmware updates unlike other companies, or if you don't want to wait, grab a x25m.

When can we expect vertex2 and what are the significant differences between SF-1200 and SF-1500?
Hmm I need to re-read anandtech review...

Actually given my previously mentioned usage scenario, I'm having a hard time determining if 50GB really is sufficient.
I'm starting to think 60GB is the ideal minimum capacity; just to be on the safe side. I wish I could work out how to quantify everything more accurately!

Assuming that's true than the mercury isn't big enough...
So I'll have to go for one x25-m, two x-25v (or kingston equivalent), or two ocz vertex 30gb (or similar)

[SteveRo]

1500 wqas supposed to be for enterprise use and 1200 for home?

[SteveRo]

Given those choices, I would pick 2x x25-v - only disadvatage is no trim (yet).
See - http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ighlight=x25-v
We think they are working on trim for raid but we don't have it yet.

edit - also no GC for intel (vertex has gc), looks like intel does not.

[naokaji]

What interface does the x25-m use again, forgotten, it's SATA2 right?
Is it known to be hamstrung somewhat by it? (like in random bursts etc)

Yes, it uses SATA2 and no, its not really limited by it. The Sandforce drives are using SATA2 only as well, if you want SATA3 you would be looking at the Crucial RealSSD 300, but that is very expensive and performance is not consistent.

When can we expect vertex2 and what are the significant differences between SF-1200 and SF-1500?

Unfortunately there is no final date set in stone.
The performance difference is small, while the price difference is said to be massive, but then price will be a issue for most sandforce based ssds as they have lots of "spare" nand to reduce the negative impacts of usage.

Actually given my previously mentioned usage scenario, I'm having a hard time determining if 50GB really is sufficient.
I'm starting to think 60GB is the ideal minimum capacity; just to be on the safe side.

The x25m is 80GB, so you would have some more headroom there, intel limited max write speeds artificially to make the x25e look a bit better, but in worst case situations where other ssds tank like crazy the x25 (both m and e) just keep going which makes them overall very attractive drives.

Of course there is another option, with the release of the sandforce armada getting close you should be able to find the current Vertex (and its identical counterparts from the competition) with some nice rebates which may allow you to go for more capacity.

Newegg currently has some nice rebates on the 30GB vertex, since Intel just released a chipset driver that supports trim in raid you may also consider putting two 30GB Vertex in raid 0.

[jalyst]

Given those choices, I would pick 2x x25-v - only disadvatage is no trim (yet).
See - http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ighlight=x25-v
We think they are working on trim for raid but we don't have it yet.

edit - also no GC for intel (vertex has gc), looks like intel does not.

The sad thing is, I think I read that thread but forgot everything I read, LOL!
So basically that thread proves that 2x X25-V is better all-round, yet similar price to 1x X25-M?

I'm partially tempted to go for Mercury, if only to be everyone's guinea pig
But I need to be certain capacity will not be an issue...

To simplify I think I'll leave 2x 30GB indilinx MLC's out of the finalists.
So only: X25-M 80GB Vs 2x X25-V Vs OWC Mercury Extreme 50GB

This usr (gullars) claims TRIM support is available:
What you offer is really a couple more ports off the controller, and using RAID mode instead of AHCI. BTW, Intels new drivers will support TRIM in RAID non-member and RAID-0 up to 6 units, so you won't have to sacrafice TRIM support.
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/319...200/index.html

*edit*
I guess he's just suggesting it will be available.

[SteveRo]

True, no trim in raid yet.
Yes, hard choice between your three options - from conservative to more ballsy and xtreme - x25-m, 2x x25-v, 2xowc50's.
Is cost a factor, option 3 is twice the cost of option 1 and 2.
Just to confirm, your planning to use ich10?

[jalyst]

Unfortunately there is no final date set in stone.
The performance difference is small, while the price difference is said to be massive,

Yeah if there's no clear date then at this time I'm only interested in focussing on: x25-m, mercury, or 2x x25-v.

Of course there is another option, with the release of the sandforce armada getting close you should be able to find the current Vertex (and its identical counterparts from the competition) with some nice rebates which may allow you to go for more capacity.
Newegg currently has some nice rebates on the 30GB vertex, since Intel just released a chipset driver that supports trim in raid you may also consider putting two 30GB Vertex in raid 0.

Nah for doubling-up on smaller drives I think I'll just stick to the X25-V.
On a 1 on 1 basis they're better (for most of my/others intended use) than a vertex or vertex pro 30GB.
And now that RAID support is in place, hopefully the same will be true for RAID?!

[naokaji]

^yep, they should scale to the same extent in raid.

For the Sandforce 1200, have a look at the Tweaktown review of the Corsair Force SSD here, they are really not looking bad except for the price issue.