add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Best Cheap SSDs

JeSerai.Guy

6 months ago

My SSD failed (it was corrupted from the start and never worked, I'm trying to RMA it but it was from ADATA, so IDK...) and I am looking for a good SSD that is under $50.

I am probably only going to have Windows 10 and Fortnite on the SSD (because I want to be able to easily wipe it, and because I don't have very many applications) so prioritize speed over storage as long as the storage capacity is decent.

Thanks.

Comments

  • 6 months ago
  • 4 points

... under $50... prioritize speed over storage ...

At the time of this post, if residing in the US, Crucial MX500 250 GB

  • 6 months ago
  • 3 points

Sata.

PCPartPicker Part List

Type Item Price
Custom XPG SX950U 480 GB 3D-NAND Gaming 2.5 Inch SATA III Read and Write up to 560/520 MB/s SSD (ASX950USS-480GT-C) $47.99 @ Amazon
Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
Total $47.99
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-05-19 20:04 EDT-0400

Has both DRAM and decent sized SLC caching unlike most models in the price range.

If You want pure speed there are several decently reviewed NVME models under 50$ now.

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/compare/V2WfrH,fcndnQ,vs97YJ,73hKHx/

Avoid several of the popular models like SanDisks SSD Plus, Adata 650/655/635, or the A400 from Kingston they moved away from fixed internals so they can be anything from a terrible DRAMless model to the low end models they are matched against.

  • 6 months ago
  • 0 points

The Kingston A400 480GB SSD for ~$50 USD would be my top pick for the budget. Has a 4.6 out of 5 stars on over 1800 reviews on Amazon.

  • 6 months ago
  • 1 point

but it's dramless therefore it's bad.

  • 6 months ago
  • 2 points

I wouldn't quite go that far on DRAMless, its more that nobody has bothered to put the money into developing a good controller for Sata that can be run without a decent DRAM cache.

NVME controllers have managed to solve the problem even though they are if anything hurt worse by not having DRAM cache.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hp-ex900-ssd,5531.html

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14223/the-western-digital-wd-blue-sn500-ssd-review/10

So it is possible for a Sata to be DRAMless and good they just don't do it.

And it doesn't help that You can buy Phison E12 NVME models for very little more then a DRAMless Sata which are better all-round.

  • 6 months ago
  • 1 point

Well there isn't much speed variation across SATA based SSDs and it becomes a larger concern for NVMe types. The A400 model does have a decent IOPS rating for speed as far as sata goes and since OP dealt with a failure before I figured I would suggest one that seemed to have decent reliability and a lot really good reviews. SATA SSDs for the most part are bottle necked in speed by the SATA interface directly rather than the drive itself.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube