The WD Green 240GB 545MB/s 3D NAND SATA 2.5" SSD provides powerful and reliable performance. With 545MB/s of sequential read and 3D NAND technology, speed will never be an issue with the WD Green. Alongside with one of the lowest power consumption in the industry, it will help to boost your laptop battery time as well.
Deal starts tomorrow at 10PM and ends at 11PM.
Pay bit more to get Samsung or Crucial.
for sure. these have a good burst write rate (over 500MB/s) but once you fill the buffer it drops down to about 50MB/s
Why? WD is faster and cheaper.
cheaper yes. faster, no
+Samsung reliability
how much more? any link for it?
Kingston UV400 is ok ($105 at MSY/Mwave/Umart) but don't get the A400.
Samsung 850 evo is always popular at about $110. I have trouble getting these in WA though, shops charge more than they should here.
Crucial MX500 performs about the same as the Samsung 850 evo. Also about $110 right now.
Intel 545s is a little better than the MX500. $105 at PLE at the moment, this is the one I would get right now. I guess it's up to you whether to spend $17 more for this.
I wouldn't bother with the WD blue, outperformed by the Samsung.
Crucial MX500 performs about the same as the Samsung 850 evo
Nope, MX500 is cheaper and faster.
And less power hungry.
This is fine for a storage drive. Wouldn't use as a frequent drive though for an OS or anything.
240gb isn’t much space, guess put it into a usb enclosure and it would be faster and more reliable than an sd card or a usb thumb drive and cheaper per gb.
people where whinging when i said 64 gig ssd wasnt enough space!
Not people. Just 1 idiot who thought he/she was smart.
most laptops only have space for 1 drive, so if you had 500gb spindle which is common, for an easy migration you want at least the same space when moving windows 10.
My work laptop only has ~240GB of stuff on it, and that's including all the corporate bloatware that we get forced into. My desktop PC has a 128GB SSD for the main drive, and it's only half full.
I presume your desktop has a 2nd drive besides the 128GB SSD.
If you back-up a 64Gb phone or 128GB phone and an Ipad (32, 64, or 128GB) a fair chunk of that 240GB is gone after Windows 10, office and a few movies. To the cloud takes forever and it depends what internet you have from a speed and $$ considertation.
Desktops are easy, I have 750GB SSD (500GB used) and a 4TB spindle (2.4TB used).
But many laptops will only take one drive, and for some people that is all the PC they have at home to backup phones and tablets.
@garage sale:
Most people have a smaller SSD for their OS Drive. Only putting windows and software on it. 240gb is more than enough room. Then they have terabytes worth for storage. Don't confuse the two!
@garage sale: External spinning drives are cheap and easy. No need to store media and backups on a tier 1 drive.
@macrocephalic: I reckon anyone who does video or photo editing for a living would disagree with you
@pinchies: People who who do that sort of thing for a living probably don't store their media on a tier 1 drive either, they might put it there while editing, but I'll be that once they're done they'll move it to a storage drive or other medium.
I don't do it for a living, but I do a fair bit of photo editing. I move the files onto an SSD (which is in an external USB3 housing) for editing. Once they're done I move them all to a 2TB spinning drive, and back that up to another spinning drive.
most laptops only have space for 1 sata drive ….. so it’s hard to have an ssd for boot and spindle for bulk storage …..
@macrocephalic: People doing a lot of video work (esp. 4K) do use a lot of SSDs. Their primary ones would be m.2 NVMe ones for sure. The Pro's use heaps of SSDs (RAID setup as well). You cannot compare photo work to video editing.
Some people feel strongly that only certain files should be stores on an SSD and most files should go to hard drives. A lot of the are quite tech savvy. However, the fact is, those people rate the cost of SSDs as a very important factor or they have those setup themselves.
Anyone using SSD + HDD setup and believe wholeheartedly that's the only way isn't being objective. Don't get me wrong, I have that setup at home too. However, since the beginning of last year, work has started issuing laptops to everyone with only SSD or SSDs. Business people get thin and light laptops with one SSD. Tech people get SSD (m2) + SSD (SATA3 TLC) combo laptops.
When making recommendation, don't use your own current setup as the maximum threshold. There is nothing wrong with a big SSD for a laptop. We don't reboot our PCs/laptops 10 times a day. I've been using Sleep function on desktops for years. Commonly used apps and files should be put on SSDs (otherwise what's the point of getting the SSD?). SSDs are ubiquitous nowadays.
240 is fine for sdd if you have a another 2/3 tb hdd for storage
240GB is a lot of space.
I bought 850 500gb for $110 a month ago
I bought 850 500gb for $110 a month ago
From where?
Kogan when they did voucher stuff.
Even you get $50 fkr free, the 500gb had to be $160 with free shipping. Unless you had some credit & shipster.
voucher shenanigans are dead?
balls, man
GTX 1070Ti is very good deal. WD SSD not bargain enough
No it’s not
Any deals going on 500Gb plus SSD's ATM?
Thanks. :) I actually did that but didn't see that Samsung deal. (d'oh wrong form factor. )
Looking for external SSD. Any good deals around?
buy a sata ssd drive and usb 3.0 enclosure ($8-$15 on ebay) that way you can if you need later put into a usb c enclosure if needed.
Why is it a green SSD?
A conventional WD green hard drive spins slower, uses less power assumedly.
I've bought green power supplies, they don't give you a power cord assuming you've got one.
It's 'green' to signify they use the cheapest flash chips with the lowest write endurance they could find. An endurance of just 1000 cycles is common. This is likely to be more than enough for most users however.
Anyone used a caddy for a 2nd laptop HD, you know the one where you replace the DVD drive? I'm considering but they don't seem common or popular??
Which one has better performance per dollar? WD Blue SSD or WD Green SSD?
For me, long life archive stuff I store on 100gb BDXL discs (about $6-7 per disc on eBay). Then I put them in their individual sleeves in a case specifically made for long-term disc storage (they're cheap enough). I am betting this method of long-term storage will beat HDDs.
Can personally vouch for Kodak Infoguard cd/dvd discs lasting at least 20 years IME, and that's not even being terribly pedantic about how they're stored (just a simple disc wallet)
Another point I would like to make is about disc scratches, you can have discs repaired on the data side for $5-10 dollars by a machine…. retrieval from a stuffed head HDD is generally quite costly to a consumer ($000's) unless they know what they're doing/can replace heads themselves (amongst other things that can be damaged in HDDs).
All in all because of this I believe discs that store data on low reactive metals + cost of repair to discs on data side (scratches) = discs < HDDs
This is actually really interesting, easily 10 years of cold storage for 7$.
A savings of $8 on a bottom end drive, but have to order at a specific time, and I have to wait how long for delivery? MSY $95 and can have as soon as I feel like it. Sorry not remotely a bargain.
$9.25 postage for me in Brisbane.
Are there any other deals during this hour tomorrow?