I believe this is the lowest price the 500GB has been on OzBargain.
MSY currently has it at $329, so a nice saving of around 20%.
EDIT: Price increased by $10 at 8:30am Melbourne time. Title has been adjusted. Still a very nice saving.
CamelCamelCamel.
SSD alone shows $249 USD ?
Thanks fallen. Price increased by $10 a few minutes ago :(
Title updated.
The $266 isn't using Amazon's conversion rate. Probably 28Degrees or something.
Might be worth mentioning.
You would never use the amazon conversion rate, your wasting 3% !!
nvm, I have some other things in the cart that has different shipping charge.
Is it fast like the Mitsubishi EVO ?
Much faster. But what isn't?
Nice Skyhooks reference! :D
shockin' me right outa of my brain
+1 even though I ordered a crucial M500 480gb a few days ago ($A251.51 Amazon/28deg), and this made me wonder if I'd made a mistake and should have waited.
is crucial m500 better or this evo?
the evo is more expensive?
Just be wary that this drive has TLC chips rather than MLC, and thus has a much shorter lifespan than its "840 Pro" brother or the Crucial drives (about 1/3 by comparison)
IMO, I would rather buy the crucial M500 that's on special unless you're after the faster write speeds - but will be left with a dead drive sooner
Note that 'much shorter life span' for the 840 EVO 500gb is 15 years, calculated at 100gb of writes to the drive per day.
How many people would write 100gb per day and would even consider to be using the same storage device in 15 years time?
I'm not sure about this. Looking at my current hard drive, the bulk of it is data that doesn't get written over, eg songs, movies, photos, older documents etc. So there is only a smaller portion of the drive that gets written over and over again. To me this means a small portion of 15-20% cops the bulk of the read/write cycles. Would this make any difference?
They already thought of this, and it is addressed by wear levelling.
For any normal home user or even power user SSD lifespan isn't really a problem. It's only when you get into servers or specific scenarios where the drive will be getting hammered with writes 24x7 that NAND lifespan becomes an issue.
i think i read somewhere that the life span you are talking about is TFC approx 17 years and MLC which has like 80 yrs? If the rough estimate i have is correct (theoretical) then i wouldn't be too worried, i think most people these days buying these high capacity SSD drives are performance enthusiasts and they would have some type of redundant back up system in-place (NAS) or they change computers/computer parts often that their data is always moving.
Actually the Evo has MLC nand flash. The normal 840 also has MLC nand flash. The 840 Pro has TLC nand flash, which is better than MLC.
Other way around; 840 Pro is MLC and 840 Evo is TLC. SLC > MLC > TLC
Anyone know if rough postal handling is an issue for lifespan?
Agree, life span is not an issue.
Not jumping on this deal is!
haha, beaten to the punch, bugga!!!!!
To say that lifespan is not an issue is rather optimistic - it depends very much on what type of computing you do. If you are curious (and do not expect a single line answer with a single number of years), if you like more information, here is the best article from StorageSearch.com on the topic with many references for further studies (studies?! yes, this is not a link for people who want straight answer to a question: "so how many years of error free service will I get?!):
"SSD endurance myths and legends - the saga continues"
http://www.storagesearch.com/ssdmyths-endurance.html
Hi, I just got off livechat with Samsung, they do not provide international cover on product purchased in US. Does it concern anyone? The deal is so tempting!
Whaat you get 57 votes and I got nothing, the travesty!
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/145149#comment-2001261
Super deal!
If it was a good enough deal, you should've posted it separately.
I've contributed one +ve for your efforts. :)
It will drop further, I hope :)
Cheers TA.
Bought last time at $281 - is sitting inside the box still next to me so I should have waited!
geez I just bought the Kingston V300 240GB for $140…I should have waited, I heard these Samsungs outperform the Kingston V300 in everyway
~2-3x the performance.
Your kidding???
You're making me want to go home and rip it off and throw it in the bin.
My mate kept raving on about me getting an SSD, i've always been into Raptor 10K drives.
So I finally folded in, bought this SSD. My boot up time on Windows 7 64 with just Kaspersky was just shaved off by ~7 secs with this SSD compared to my Raptor. What a waste of money!!
Just Kaspersky? Just Kaspersky?!
Here's what would happen if you had more than just Kapersky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyEIPRDymsY
c0balt thats worst comparison i've ever seen.
My 7,200 Seagate crappy disk used to load quicker
I'm sure this video was heavily geared to support someone's SSD fantasy
What I meant with just Kaspersky is that i've recently formatted to install the SSD and took out my Raptor. @ Just a blank Win 7 image and Kaspersky, i've hardly seen any improvement
Well you screwed something up royally in that case.
Either you're running on a SATAII port, your motherboard is ancient and has a really slow SATA controller, you're running SATA in IDE mode, you haven't installed your chipset/SATA drivers properly, need to update the BIOS, the drive is faulty or it wasn't reformatted properly.
I'm sure this video was heavily geared to support someone's SSD fantasy
Lol, get a clue.
"What I meant with just Kaspersky is that i've recently formatted to install the SSD and took out my Raptor. @ Just a blank Win 7 image and Kaspersky, i've hardly seen any improvement"
That's exactly what I thought you meant.
"I'm sure this video was heavily geared to support someone's SSD fantasy"
The link I provided was a perfectly valid comparison as it was a windows image + more between the two. Not just a fresh windows install with Kaspersky.
The video says the truth.
You are spouting tripe.
Wow!
Who the heck told you 10K/15K HDDs gave you fast boot times or application load times?
Spindle speed does not directly affect transfer rates. It impacts seek and rotational positioning times.
Even in sustained read/write they're beaten by modern high density platter drives with large caches.
10K/15K HDDs are only worth it in really expensive RAID arrays with really expensive SAS controllers for businesses who backup like crazy.
For the average home user, 10K/15K HDDs have always been pointless. Not to mention they're noisy as hell.
Are you smoking crack?
Average seek time is defined as the average time it takes the read/write head to move from one random track to another track on the hard drive. The faster the Disk spins the shorter the access time. That effects the boot time, because during boot, there is read/write.
So yes the Raptors will outperform your standard 7,200 disk and 5,400 (both read/write) But that also depends if your looking at a 750GB 15,000 Raptor vis a 128GB SSD, not a very good comparison.
This is like arguing with the Flat Earth Society.
So yes the Raptors will outperform your standard 7,200 disk and 5,400 (both read/write)
But that also depends if your looking at a 750GB 15,000 Raptor vis a 128GB SSD, not a very good comparison.
Yeah because the SSD owns them.
Why did you divert from your original argument
"Who the heck told you 10K/15K HDDs gave you fast boot times or application load times?"
and then agreeing with:
"By ~2 seconds on average."
Doh! thats what people look for dufus! what im not expecting a 60min access time improvement? People stroke their drives to shave 5ms access time.
My original statement was that the 240GB SSD did not outperform my Raptor by blinding speed. and that is i found, primary due to the make/model of my SSD
Why did you divert from your original argument
"Who the heck told you 10K/15K HDDs gave you fast boot times or application load times?"
and then agreeing with:
"By ~2 seconds on average."
Because a 2 second improvement does not constiute a "fast" improvement.
Compared to my WD2003FZEX, my Crucial M500 (480GB) shaved 20 seconds off my boot time and around 6-10 seconds in game level load times.
Now that I consider a significant improvement.
Doh! thats what people look for dufus!
By people you mean obsessive compulsive E-Peen warriors who actually believe in mythological phenomenon like "short-stroking", which hasn't been relevant since 2006?
People stroke their drives to shave 5ms access time.
Woooooooooooooooow 5 milliseconds! Let me pop a champagne bottle.
In exchange for sacrifcing what, 50% of the storage space?
You must be King Dingaling at parties.
My original statement was that the 240GB SSD did not outperform my Raptor by blinding speed. and that is i found, primary due to the make/model of my SSD
No it's because you don't know how to install an SSD properly or because you got a dud.
In any case you still got an improvement (7 less seconds to boot up) that you would never, ever see with a 10K/15K RPM HDD.
7secs off a clean install of windows 7 (which doesn't take long to boot anyway) is a pretty big improvement for just replacing a single component.
The more bloated the install and the more software you have the bigger the improvement will be.
And yet he thinks a 5 millisecond difference in seek times on his precious WD Velociraptor is something to boast about.
No it's because you don't know how to install an SSD properly or because you got a dud.
There's only one way SSD power and SSD cables are inserted. It's not a dud because it's either DOA or Works.
The rest is peanut butter,
Compared to my WD2003FZEX, my Crucial M500 (480GB) shaved 20 seconds off my boot time and around 6-10 seconds in game level load times.
Average boot time of a well managed PC (not high end performance parts) is 30secs. so you're saying your PC boots in ~10secs. I see that number quite exaggerated.
Yet he's obsessed with 5 millisecond differences in seek times on his precious WD Velociraptor.
I was referring to the mean IOPS speed. not 5ms off boot time.
Learn how the reply function works.
There's only one way SSD power and SSD cables are inserted. It's not a dud because it's either DOA or Works.
What I wrote here:
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/145171#comment-2002456
And no, SSDs can have bad NAND blocks the same way HDDs can have bad sectors. Both affect performance.
The rest is peanut butter,
The rest is conclusive proof that SSDs absolutely trounce 10K/15K HDDs, since you yourself get to desktop in 7 seconds less time. A feat no 10K/15K HDD would ever match.
Average boot time of a well managed PC (not high end performance parts) is 30secs. so you're saying your PC boots in ~10secs. I see that number quite exaggerated.
Actually you're the one inventing figures. 30 seconds? On a 7200RPM HDD? No. Try 40-50 on a very well managed HDD with 80% free space.
On a 60% full 2TB WD2003FZEX (WDx003FZEX series are pretty much the fastest 7200RPM HDDs on the market now) I was around 40 at best. My current boot times are within the realm of 15-20 seconds and those haven't changed as the used capacity has increased. Still the same boot time at 30%, 50% and now 65% used capacity. What dropped the boot time even further, as it was originally around 25 seconds, was a BIOS update on my Z68XP-UD3 (which is by no means a new or fancy motherboard anymore; so with an even more modern mobo with a better storage controller and Windows 8, you could boot even faster I'm sure).
I was referring to the mean IOPS speed. not 5ms off boot time.
I'm still in shock. 5 milliseconds. 5 milliseconds on that noisy POS that grinds and spins with the kinetic energy of a hurricane.
I'm still in shock. 5 milliseconds.
Don't drag on the smartarse comment too much, becomes childish.
Thanks for conceding defeat. It was a pleasure debunking your deeply-held 10K HDD supremacism.
Thanks for conceding defeat. It was a pleasure debunking your deeply-held 10K HDD supremacism
No, I was just commenting on your smug attitude, I never conceded defeat, nor did I assume the chair of a debater with you. You just jumped in with heroic remarks and jargons backed by throwing in the technical clause here & there
Seen as you have limited mental capacity here are my points to take away;
1 > The Kingston V300 SSD did not heavily outperform my Raptor Drive @ Boot time
2 > I found out that the Samsung Evo are much better (performance), hence my frustration at my SSD choice.
3 > You moved the debate onto how Raptor drives have no performance benefit over standard disks at boot time, which is the dumbest statement i've read today.
You said you bought this SSD.
So I finally folded in, bought this SSD
?
3 > You moved the debate onto how Raptor drives have no performance benefit over standard disks at boot time, which is the dumbest statement i've read today.
Yes the debate moved direction because you cannot post any benchmark that'll prove anything towards your point that somehow 10K RPM HDDs are better than SSDs.
Are they better over 7200RPM disks of 5 years ago? Yes. Today's denser-platter, higher-cache HDDs? No. Their prices are not justified save for in very specific enterprise applications.
Forstman:
"The Kingston V300 SSD did not heavily outperform my Raptor Drive @ Boot time"
So after all that tripe you vomited about how you think the EVOs are not as fast as your old crappy raptor, you now change your tune to say the SSD that you own (V300) is known as being the slowest and worst performing SSD.
You're a fool. Get the hell out of an EVO thread and stay the hell away from any in the future.
Your comments, progression and attitude are pathetic.
Mr. Frost, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
If you recall I asked if the Evos outperform the Kingston V300 that I bought,
you, Mr Cobalt said by appx 2-3 times better
my next response still in the same thread spoke about how I bought "this" SSD, remember its the same thread and how its shite. So still referring to the Kingston in how I said I feel like going home and ripping it off my PC.
what's so irrational, incohrent, idiotic about that statement?
are you just looking for space to spill out those retarded warrior comments to make you feel supreme?
I've found people who use exaggerated texts like that are just weak and miserable individuals
lol! Now I see what has happened! You started a new comment thread instead of replying to me.
Your formatting error screwed everything up. You weren't replying to me, you were replying to the O.P.
Had you actually replied to me instead of the O.P (which I can now see was your intention) then none of this would have happened.
Back down to $239 USD.
Showing as AUD 276.96 delivered at the moment?
Items: AUD 270.49
Shipping & handling: AUD 6.4