|
One could also use the far more conservative numbers that Samsung itself provides in the warranty. For a 250GB 850 EVO, the warranty is 5 years/75TBW, which works out to about 40GB/day. The 850 EVOs larger than 250GB allow for 80GB/day. Given that Samsung doesn't consider you to be a 'heavy user' until you cross those lines, I'm not going to lose sleep over what is likely my main, most-used process (a web browser) eating 1/8-1/4 of my daily quota. One could easily use a car analogy here, but in any case, drives (spinning rust or SS) should be considered wear-items. I'm not going to trust any drive older than 5 years, so there's little point in 'babying' it until then.
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:28 |
|
|
Sab669 posted:Does this sound like a dying drive? Probably not. Dead/dying boot drives usually will give you BSODs or it won't POST at all. If you have one, try taking the drive out and connecting it to another machine with a SATA->USB adapter. If you can read/write to the drive, it's probably something corrupt in the Windows install.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
nrook posted:Am I being an idiot for buying a SATA SSD in 2016? Certainly not, even given the fact that Samsung is holding pretty firm on their 850 EVO prices. Most real-world performance testing doesn't show a noticeable improvement in speed with PCI-based SSDs over fast SATA drives. If you're moving around 100+GB files frequently you might feel it, but shaving a half a second here and there is going to be totally missed. For 95% of users, the PCI drives are total overkill, but that's never stopped hardware enthusiasts before.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Vidaeus posted:Would I see any real world benefits from upgrading to one of the new Samsung 960 EVOs 1TB when they come out and using this as a bbootstrap drive? Or even a 950 Evo? The general answer to this is: no. Day-to-day, seat-of-pants performance will not be noticeably better with a NVMe-based SSD. There are workloads that could potentially benefit from the added speed, but currently, for most people, these drives aren't worth the price premium for anything other than e-peen bragging rights.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Was just buying a 500GB SSD to spruce up my SO's laptop, and I wanted to post the current deals I found: Amazon and Newegg have the 525GB Crucial MX300 for 109.99 (free shipping) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820156151 https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-MX300-750GB-Internal-Solid/dp/B01IAGSD68?th=1 They both also have the 500GB Samsung 850 EVO for 129.99 (fs) with a code for Watch Dogs 2 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147373 https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-2-5-Inch-Internal-MZ-75E500B-AM/dp/B00OBRE5UE I'm pretty sure these are the lowest prices ever for these drives. FWIW, I ordered the Crucial initially before the Samsung went on sale, but switched it for the EVO this morning. All the computers I use have the EVO in them, and I didn't want to chance a different brand for $20 saving (superstition.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:SSD Prices Skyrocket As NAND Shortage Deepens, HDD Shortage Looms As Components Become Scarce: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ssd-hdd-shortage-nand-market,33112.html This probably didn't help, but at least for the 850 EVO, I think it's just Samsung/retailers milking the high demand. When you have the #1 rated, #1 fastest, and #1 best selling SATA drive, there's really little motivation to drop prices any faster than they are falling for SSDs in general. This Camelcamelcamel chart shows the 500GB 850 EVO, where it's clear that the Black Friday to Cyber Monday pricing was just a short blip. The price has returned to the standard level. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Larrymer posted:Anybody else still not gotten their Watchdogs 2 code from buying a Samsung SSD recently? They said within 2 weeks from the ship date I should have it. (to be fair, 2 weeks is tomorrow) FWIW, I got mine from Amazon the day the SSD shipped (4 days after order.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
GRINDCORE MEGGIDO posted:Some goons recommended 1TB SSD's a few pages back in the thread that might be of interest for ditching any remaining spinners. I don't mind spinning rust for media files: video, music, etc. Those files don't need super fast transfer rates/seek times, as even the most maxed-out 4K video is about 10 megabytes a second, which can easily be handled by a HDD made in the last 10 years. The $/GB for SSDs, though getting better and better, still doesn't make sense for a TB+ of media files. I have been thinking about a small (256-500GB) SSD in addition to the SSD the OS lives on for anything data related. I could move source code, Windows user profile, and any programs that don't care over to that drive. I doubt it would make all that much difference, however. I don't think most of my reads off the C: SSD are maxing it out, except during obvious operations like file copies.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Red_Fred posted:If I do my own enclosure, can I encrypt the drive? That would be handy I guess. Bitlocker (Windows) will allow you to encrypt removable drives with a simple password scheme. It's pretty handy, because if your machine is secure/encrypted, you can save the password so that you don't have to enter it when you insert that drive again.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Q8ee posted:I've been seeing these crop up lately and have no idea 1) how to install them and 2) what their advantage over a normal SATA SSD is. They're faster, on paper, provided your MOBO chipset supports the 4 channels on the M2 slot. SATA 3 (6Gb/s) is limited to 600MB/s, with real-world somewhere around the mid 500s. Whereas that drive claims "up to 2,800MB/sec read & up to 600MB/sec write".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:28 |
|
|
I like the piece of black, hockey stick tape used to hold down the fan's power leads.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2018 21:26
|
|