OCZ agility 3 480gb ssd

[FMod]

 

Also considering getting Crucial m5, they are quite good in comparison, but the read writes are slower.

You know that I know better. Ask your questions, but there's no need to argue.

The high specs of Sandforce drives come from the compression used.

 

Do you want meaningless spec claims, or do you want real-life, sustained, reliable performance?

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Crucial/M500_480_GB/7.html

 

Crucial M500 copies a file in less than half the time it takes for Agility 3 - 13.3 vs 28.6 seconds.

 

 

 

Also what are you connecting it with, sata 3 cable is required to get the overall high end performance.

There is no difference between cables marked SATA 2 and SATA 3. It's been tested thoroughly. Even cables designed for SATA (1) at 150 MB/s have no trouble sustaining SATA 3's 600.

 

VRAM size or clock rate does not affect system boot speed. It only affects framerates in games if the video card is bandwidth bound. VRAM size may affect the performance of some graphical applications when working with large sets of high resolution images, if they support GPU caching.

[Thor.]

The difference is speed :smile: highly recommended for ssd's

 

http://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/8142/~/difference-between-sata-i,-sata-ii-and-sata-iii

[FMod]

There is no difference between SATA cables (sic) that have "SATA II" or "SATA III" or "600MB/s" or whatever written on them.

[Thor.]

The cable is no different, but the sata port does matter...

[FMod]

Well, you said cable. And I think he's qualified enough to connect it to the right port.

 

BTW, even if he didn't, the only way to tell is to run benchmarks. SATA 300 vs 600 makes precious little difference on the fastest SATA SSD and essentially none on the rest.

 

The average read/write rate a SSD provides under mixed load is only around 100 MB/s. Their advantage comes from the fact that a HDD only pulls 1-2 MB/s under such load from an average drive, up to 3-4 MB/s from a Raptor.

[Thor.]

I found a samsung ssd 500gb under 400$ no sale :biggrin:

 

http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5247115&CatId=5300

 

and its considered to be faster than the Agility 3

Can't beat the quality and the price, this drive has very good reviews compared to the Agility 3.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Thor.

[FMod]

You're a real hero... but 840 is a TLC drive. It won't last. It's not meant to be a system drive at all.

 

And M500 480 GB is only 5 bucks more:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148695

A drive meant to be a system drive and a drive that will last as such.

[Thor.]

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148695

 

reliability is also what i need :thumbsup: I am thinking about it, its hard decision sense this is going to be my main drive.

 

I like the nand feature on the Crucial m500, saved data in memory .

 

 

 

Another thing that sets the M500 apart are clearly holdovers from the enterprise version of the m4 SSD. Power hold-up is provided by a small row of capacitors that will flush all data in transit to the NAND in the event of a power loss. This feature is not standard with any other consumer SSD on the market, and in enterprise SSDs power capacitors typically command a much higher price structure. Finding power loss protection on the consumer M500 is a nice surprise, and one that users will need more often than they think.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Thor.

[cnerde]

Where to begin...?
An SSD will speed up the boot time of your computer, and game loading times, but will not make a game run better or not stutter, when you are playing a game, mostly everything is loaded into RAM, which temporary makes a HDD/SSD irrelevant. Only when it needs to get large amounts of data (a new level or area or cutscene video) will there be any difference between a Mechanical drive vs a SSD when gaming.
I see you resolved the sata cable thing, the cable doesn't matter, only that it is plugged into a SATA rev3 port on the MOBO.
My 3 year old Intel SSD has capacitors that do that.. so that quote is wrong. OCZ drives are not less reliable, there were just so many out there, that you are going to hear more people complain.. I had an intel one die on me and lost all my data, but my agility 3 has had no problems at all. Company A, sells 100 drives 13 die, 13% failure rate, and 13 negative reviews. Company B sells 10 drives, 2 die, 20% failure rate, but only 2 people leave negative reviews. (NOTE, people are more likely to review when they have a dead product and they are angry, so in reality, both drives could have a similar number or reviews, but company A (ocz) has a lower star rating, but a better product)

[Thor.]

You think that, but in many cases you are wrong, things load up in cache faster than your conventional HD, just imagine how fast things will load if you had no bottlenecks, even with my first gen ocd i notice a huge difference vs conventional drives.

 

here is a small vs loading times.

just think how fast loading will be with the latest ssd's like m500 :biggrin:

Edited July 7, 2013 by Thor.