58 months ago
256gb MX100. $110. Bargain and easy peasy config. Set and forget instead of worrying about space, partitions or other bumpf.
You only need like ~20 gig for windows, why recommend him a 256gb drive?
Most 120/128GB drives are slower than their 256GB counterparts when it comes to write performance, and if there's little price difference between them (looks like around $40 USD at the moment between an MX100 128GB and a 256GB), going with the 256GB drive is better overall for the price. If cost is the only concern, yes, a smaller drive is the only option, but I feel like this recommendation is really the way to go.
To be fair, the cost difference between Samsung 840s and the MX100s coupled with the lower performance of writes on the MX100 makes the Samsung drives a good choice if you can afford a few more dollars, but for just booting an OS the MX100's are good enough for a lower price.
Because anything under 120GB is a waste of time. Also, windows may only take up 20GB initially, but it grows as you use it. My windows install is now at about 35GB. The reality is, a small SSD will fill up so quickly that it will become just as slow as an HDD, and space management (even on a 128GB drive, and I'm talking from experience) is a real pain on a small SSD.
He did ask for cheapest though, not most ideal
I guess, but why not spread a little knowledge from experience. Sure, you could install windows onto a 32GB SSD if you wanted to, but it's a really bad idea.
I'd probably put a minimum size at 60gb really for an os drive with apps installed on a different drive. 32 as you said is a bad idea...
I use a 120GB with no problems at all. All of my software etc is installed on it. As long as you don't dump data on their (like movies) you wont have much trouble with space.
I lived off a 64GB relatively easily.
I always had trouble with downloads, cache, and other things like that, and had to spend some time changing the directories of everything so that my SSD wouldn't fill up.
So for the price of 3 meals at Mickey D's he should be buying a drive that is too small, a piss poor performer and lesser quality. Why?
Because he asked that question.
Absolute cheapest SSD to go with is the Kingston SSDNow V300, performance wise it's pretty bad but it'll get the job done cheap:
To get the job done right, go with Crucial MX100:
Do not get a drive lower than 120gb, lots of good reasons why not out there already but most importantly is that nobody makes 2.5" Sata III SSD's lower than 120gb anymore, so that means you'll be buying not only a lower end product, but an old one as well.
Also worth mentioning is the Samsung 840 EVO, of which I have the 240gb and 120gb models. And if you can afford it, go 240gb, because
higher capacity = more nand chips = more data lanes = faster write speeds. The boot drive, the one holding the OS, likes higher write speeds (IOPs)
I just put the Kingston into my wife's computer. Very nice SSD for the price. I would steer clear of the Crucial though. The write speeds are really poor.
Unfortunately ever since Kingston's bait and switch of both the nand chips they use and the controller that runs them, the V300 has the lowest read and write performance of nearly any Sata III ssd on the market. Observe this thread: http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2033901/question-kingston-v300-ssd.html
So I'm confused. If they are one of the worst why did you recommend them?
"but it'll get the job done cheap"
That still doesn't ignore the fact that the Crucial has terrible write speeds.
Sorry, lazy attempt last night. All 120gb models have terrible write speeds compared to their bigger brothers. According to http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Crucial-MX100-128GB/Rating/2618 the MX100 240 (or 256 just to put a higher number on the packaging) has a "75% faster write speed". But it still has faster speeds than Kingston's competition, http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Kingston-SSDNow-V300-120GB/Rating/1892
Not all drives can be Samsung 850 Pro's, whose 128gb model has similar speeds to the higher capacity versions, the simple fact is that if you want blazing speeds a budget drive is not what you should be buying. Personally I recommend the 840 EVO which still performs better than both drives, http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Samsung-840-Evo-120GB/Rating/1886 but if you want to get into that disscussion, the poster should be buying a 240gb model minimum.
However they said 'cheapest', and the Kingston model is the cheapest. The crucial's "terrible write speeds" as you claim, are still higher than the Kingston's. So if they want to put more money into the equation, Crucial or Samsung is the way to go. Or ADATA, or even Kingston's Hyper X drives, just not the SSDNow, it is a terrible drive across the board.
You never came back and said how cheap, cheap is. TigerDirect is selling an OCZ 120gb drive for $64 cdn w/coupon. How low do you need to go? This is a good price.