Cheap newly released Samsung SSD. Can't comment on quality, but it's available for 23% off as a group deal and a further 20% off from the CLICK20 code, so should be a good price.
Over $105 pickup and $115 delivered elsewhere.
EDIT: Apparently all specs are the same as 850 evo except for endurance
Where is it $98?
Cheapest on staticice is $98.81+14.95 delivery to Sydney at megabuy, otherwise a $110 pickup price at megabuy. Very misleading when a seller charges extra for pickup.
Cheapest pickup price is around $105, so getting it for $92 delivered is definitely a good price.
Danny you got owned
Is 850 new or 750 new?
Technically 750 is the newer one, but it's a tier below the 850 in both performance and endurance (uses different/cheaper tech)
Looks like the 750 range cuts cost on lifespan: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10258/the-samsung-750-evo-120g…
3yrs vs 5yrs for the 850. 3yrs isn't much….
that's "just" warranty. Endurance rating is 70TB c.f. 75 for the 850 EVO, not a big difference
It's warranty, little bit of endurance, and a whole lot of performance (including more advanced technology)
thoughts on the 750 vs 850 and 250gb vs 500gb? 500 is probably kind of overkill but i dont know if ill regret getting 250 lol
what are you hoping to put on the ssd? if 250gb is enough for you right now, just get that. then get a bigger one down the line (or another 250gb) because SSD's keep getting cheaper
good point on the price, i'll go with 250
Iyl stop it my wallet hurts : (
hey lyl whats cloning software when transferring SSD do u use?
The free Seagate disk wizard software works well with Samsung SSDs:
http://www.seagate.com/au/en/support/downloads/discwizard/
I want to use this for my mac OS. should i get a computer place to put it in my mac mini and replace old hard drive or just connect it via USB3 and run MacOS off that?
If it is an older model Mac mini than the current one I would be swapping out the old drive. If it is the current model, or you couldn't be bothered opening it up for whatever reason, a cheap external USB3 case is the way to go.
Thanks
You will lose a fair bit of speed by putting it into a USB3 enclosure
Your best bet is putting it directly into the Mac mini
Thanks
Use a USB enclosure that supports UASP for a pretty significant performance boost. Vantec are usually a safe bet.
(http://www.msy.com.au/wa/balcatta/peripherals/16956--vantec-…)
how do you add it to cart and apply the code
Keen on this one. Is the Samsung 750 better than the Sandisk Ultra Plus 240GB? The Sandisk one is $86 from MSY.
Looks like it's well worth that $6 different, see here: http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/SanDisk-Ultra-II-240GB-…
You are comparing the wrong Sandisk models.
Thanks for the info, it seems like not much different among the SanDisk models when compare to Evo 750.
Definitely. Check the review here http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-750-evo-ssd,4467…
Only benefit of the Sandisk is MLC NAND for better endurance, but you'll likely never reach the 70TB write 'limit' set by Samsung (realistically, you should be able to go well past that, but they set that to be safe). My 840 Evo only does ~1-2TB of writes per year.
EDIT: Refer to ad62623's comment below. I didn't see that article :/.
I cherry picked an especially bad point of the drive. Read it all for a better picture.
Cheers dlovep and donnot. Am at work now but will buy one when i get home.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10258/the-samsung-750-evo-120g…
The 750 EVO also sets new records for slow responses, with average service times on par with standard hard drive seek times. Though since The Destroyer has an average queue depth of about 5.5, a mechanical hard drive would still be several times worse by this metric. Conversely, the best MLC SSDs are almost ten times quicker than the 750 EVO.
not sure if its the case with this drive (the above review suggests it is) but several TLC based drives have slow write performance for large files.
the Cruicial BX200 960GB for example slows to HDD speeds once you copy a file larger than its 12GB cache.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3000913/storage/crucial-bx200…
most users would struggle to hit this limit but smaller capacity SSDs have even smaller caches. IIRC the 120GB SSD has a 3GB cache.
the drives design uses a small amount of more expensive SLC/MLC storage as a cache for the slower less expensive TLC that makes up the majority of the drive.
Sorry, you are not allowed to purchase this item
This item is only available to buyers who have not purchased 2 or more items from this seller in the past 10 days.
You can contact the seller for more information, or find similar items offered by other sellers.
:(
Is 750 meant to be a cheaper, inferior version of 850?
mainly in regards to performance, but I am not sure how many users would notice the difference. If you copy many large files (>5GB) or thousands of small files frequently then you would benefit from a better drive.
I want my games to load faster.
the slow throughput for TLC drives seems to only be for large writes. their read performance is good. so once your game is installed they'll load fast. though if the price difference is small i think i'd personally pay a little more.
Booting, applications, PC performance is what I would measure it on. Not so much data transfer. I would stick to the 850 evo. $20 more but better performance
hi how do I apply the CLICK20 discount code on ebay. Ebay, although mentioning the click20 discount in the description, only offers buy now rather than add to cart, where discounts are often applied. If I click buy now a screen pops up with a price of $115 and a link to paypal to buy at the $115 price.
thanks for any replys
I contacted Ebay who could see the problem. They manually added the item to my Cart which solved my problem.
Hi, can anyone help? Will this work on a MacBook Air 2012? I would like to upgrade it. Thanks.
CrystalDiskMark 5.1.2 x64 (C) 2007-2016 hiyohiyo
KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes
Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 113.297 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 127.800 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 28.395 MB/s [ 6932.4 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 49.089 MB/s [ 11984.6 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 112.825 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 126.474 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 23.636 MB/s [ 5770.5 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 43.595 MB/s [ 10643.3 IOPS]
Test : 1024 MiB [C: 40.9% (95.1/232.9 GiB)] (x5) [Interval=5 sec]
Date : 2016/06/09 10:15:53
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)
I ran it on my PC too since that is what im comparing it to, bought here
CrystalDiskMark 5.1.2 x64 (C) 2007-2016 hiyohiyo
KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes
Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 279.082 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 265.448 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 181.155 MB/s [ 44227.3 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 80.974 MB/s [ 19769.0 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 254.834 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 225.675 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 16.015 MB/s [ 3909.9 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 34.973 MB/s [ 8538.3 IOPS]
Test : 1024 MiB [C: 75.1% (89.6/119.2 GiB)] (x5) [Interval=5 sec]
Date : 2016/06/09 10:21:01
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)
I cant remember what the numbers mean but higher is better and my 4 year old ssd blitzes it
Maybe I did the migrate incorrectly? hers is win 7, basically a fresh install with not a lot on start up where mine has a fair bit but still seems faster.. I was hoping to upgrade space but not at this hit in performance
dannyhc on 02/06/2016 - 11:46 Comment score below threshold.
