How are the SanDisk SSDs?

Status
Not open for further replies.
UPDATE:

I got the SanDisk Ultra Plus 128GB SSD for $60 shipped. Over the past few days I got it installed on my Acer Aspire one netbook. I installed Windows 7 Pro, and then dual booted it with Linux Mint. I had to manually turn the defrag utility off under Windows so it wouldn't be defraging my SSD. The netbook is SATA II, so I'm sure I'm not seeing the full potential of the SSD, but that is fine.. it made the netbook much faster and it just feels a ton better. Apps open almost instantly.

Great drive, for a great price.. I'm happy.
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Did you make sure the AHCI mode is selected in BIOS, so that you will get 100% out of the SSD?

Yes, first thing I did.
smile.gif
 
You can't go wrong with Samsung SSD. It's the only company that makes the controller and the nand flash chips. I have had several SSDs and the Samsung is my favorite.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JBinTX30
You can't go wrong with Samsung SSD. It's the only company that makes the controller and the nand flash chips. I have had several SSDs and the Samsung is my favorite.


They all make controllers and the nand flash chips, it is not that big of a deal. The easy part is not making the chip but the algorithm that does the wear leveling, and that's in the firmware.

I do have to say however that Samsung makes good flash drives, along with Toshiba and Intel.

Like I always said, for the same capacity (i.e. 128GB), I'd buy the oldest drive design because every generation of NAND flash chips get slower and don't last as long due to law of physics (the cell got smaller or they try to put more bit in the cell by defining more levels of voltage as different bits), and they have to rely more on algorithms instead of physical size to do the job.

If you can find an older model drive that is on clearance for the same price because of competition, that used to sell for a much higher price because of manufacturing cost, it will be a better drive that last longer (if all else equals and no known design problem).
 
Originally Posted By: dparm


The Extreme is getting the "A+" memory and the Ultra is getting the "B" memory. The Ultra will be slower and less reliable, in theory, though whether or not you'll notice that is hard to say.

If you are backing stuff up, and it's not mission-critical work, you'll probably be fine with the Ultra series. Many credit cards give you the free double-warranty anyway. I went for the Extreme because I don't mind paying more for the extra performance, and because I use my personal computer A LOT.



From what I remember, at least a few years ago Extreme is using SLC / 1 bit per cell memory and Ultra / regular uses MLC / 2 bit per cell memory. The fundamental difference in memory used makes the Exterme much faster and last longer. Cell by cell comparison wise, the Ultra will not last as long or as fast but creative algorithms will make it good enough for most people.

However they redesign the controllers and algorithm all the time, so a newer drive with weaker slower nand chips may be compensated by better algorithm / parallelism that makes it faster than the older drive with older controller / algorithm but stronger faster nand chips. So this comparison is only valid if you are looking at drives within the same time release time frame.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
They all make controllers and the nand flash chips, it is not that big of a deal. The easy part is not making the chip but the algorithm that does the wear leveling, and that's in the firmware.


What I meant was Samsung designed there own controller/firmware for their SSD's. SO Samsung makes the NAND flash the controller chips and the Firmware. BAsically eveything in a Samsung SSD is made by Samsung. Toshiba does now as well.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top