Marketplace
PRAISE
Some significant price drops by Futu on these three SSDs. Prices include delivery. Enjoy :)
Western Digital SSD Sale: | Green 120GB $42.40 | Green 240GB $80 | Blue 500GB $156 | Delivered @ Futu eBay
2450
tightarse on 03/05/2018 - 09:59 ebay.com.au (2181 clicks)
Last edited 06/05/2018 - 19:10 by 2 other users
Last edited 06/05/2018 - 19:10 by 2 other users
Related Stores
closed Comments
- 1
- 2
You should see what they look like in a bikini.
you mean in a little number like this one? (woah gotta sit down for a while)
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/332465
Better off getting an SSD from this deal and a $6-$10 shell from MSY
what deal? list please
Uhhhhh
Western Digital Green 120GB $43.60
Western Digital Green 240GB $80
Western Digital Blue 500GB $156and MSY
Edit: My bad. Enclosures are around $11. Search MSY for "2.4 USB 3.0 HDD"
ill bet you $100 that both the $6 and $10 shells are suddenly out of stock when you get there, but don't worry, they'll have an alternative, a $16 shell that that doesn't support usb3
Cheers TA, time to upgrade the old Macbook.
Swapped the drive in my old 2010 Macbook with an SSD, it’s a beast now.
Same for my 2008 PC (although that one needed a new video card as well).
any deals on 1TB?
is it worth putting into a PS4 Pro?
Nah not worth it in a console, some games get a small benefit but unless you play those titles a lot the load time is constrained by the weak CPUs in them
You're right about the little time benefit, but wrong about the reasoning. the CPU in the PS4 Pro is fine, the reason for the tiny improvements in loads times is simply that the games haven't been optimised to take advantage of flash storage, as all consoles come with HDD storage.
Also hilariously wrong.
Please enlighten us then, troll. Look up any respectable review of the matter, and this is the explanation presented. You must know something we all don't.
How do you "optimize" for flash storage?
PC games load faster on SSD, even older games when SSDs weren't yet available.
The same console game running on PC loads faster. Why would they optimize for SSD on PC and not bring those optimizations to the console also?
"How do you "optimize" for flash storage?"
I don't know TBH. I'm not a developer. But that is what all of the experts say. So until a better alternative is offered, that's what I'm going to believe.
10 year old dual-core's benefit massively from SSD's, yet their CPU power is vastly inferior to a PS4 Pro. So that one is easily discredited."PC games load faster on SSD, even older games when SSDs weren't yet available."
And they do on console as well. However just like console, older PC games don't see as a big of a benefit as new ones."The same console game running on PC loads faster. Why would they optimize for SSD on PC and not bring those optimizations to the console also?"
Because PC has SSD and console doesn't…Why optimize for a storage type which no console comes with? This makes no sense. It takes time and money to add that in yet there is no benefit on console, however there is on PC.10 year old dual-core's benefit massively from SSD's, yet their CPU power is vastly inferior to a PS4 Pro. So that one is easily discredited.
That's because they are running an entire OS with many background services and other applications all fighting for the disk i/o which is the major advantage of an SSD. The majority of games use big data archives with indexes on them to reduce disk i/o, it's very rare for a modern game to have thousands of raw files.
Gaming consoles do not have the problem of many background services as they are very cut down OS running cut down kernels with the bloat of a full OS stripped out, they run the "dashboard" and the game. Nothing else is taking CPU cycles/performing disk i/o operations. You don't have to worry about programs checking for updates, anti virus engines reading your files, search indexes, your browser open, etc.
Disk i/o is not the major limiting factor in load times on a console, the CPU has to actually decompress the data it is loading from disk which is the limiting factor for the majority of titles.
And yet the CPU in a PS4 Pro is more powerful than your average 5-year old PC/laptop CPU. So again, this cannot be the limiting factor…
@Viper8: I think you are overestimating it.
https://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/rip-ps…
The PS4 / PS4 Pro use low power chipsets and are easily outperformed by 5yr old 2nd generation i5/i7 (they are still very good CPUs). Even the pentium CPU in the linked thread can outdo the Pro in gaming performance and it's only a dual core with hyperthreading.
When the game is loading there are only 3 factors. The storage i/o, the memory (RAM) i/o and the CPU (and to a lesser extent the GPU). I don't know why it's so hard for you to admit the bottleneck?
Here is an article about the PS4 Pro CPU - https://www.tweaktown.com/news/55032/ps4-pro-held-back-jagua…
And they do on console as well. However just like console, older PC games don't see as a big of a benefit as new ones.
Actually, since old games are smaller they load faster naturally and are instant on SSD.
Because PC has SSD and console doesn't…Why optimize for a storage type which no console comes with?
Because the option to put one in is there.
It takes time and money to add that in yet there is no benefit on console, however there is on PC.
It takes no work to 'optimize' it for console SSD if the optimization was already done for the PC.
And yet the PS4 Pro CPU can play the latest AAA titles on close to max detail at 1080p 60FPS, something which even modern dual-core Intel CPU's cannot always do, let alone old ones.
The console CPU may feature low clocks to reduce power, but it has 8 core to compensate, and the console versions of the games are designed to take advantage of these additional cores.
That's hilariously wrong.
I'm aware of the other bottlenecks. I just like having the best experience possible, so if you can shave off 10-20 secs of load time, it just feels nicer. I totally get that it's not an efficient return on investment compared to if using on PC. If it saves you some frustration if you fast travel or die a lot, maybe it's worth $156.
I would disagree, it's up to the player. While it's nice to load a few seconds quicker (e.g. I'm in the Division's underground 3-5 seconds ahead of my squad) the most noticeable difference is texture pop-in and the occasional game "judder" is greatly diminished.
If the above has value, then it would be worth it.That's due to a lack of GPU power and/or memory, not storage type. The games loads a level out of storage and into memory, and as you walk around the GPU renders it. This can be seen on PC by monitoring the usage of each component. Storage goes nuts and RAM cranks up, then once you begin playing its over to the GPU (and CPU).
@Viper8: sure but when your machine either lacks the memory capacity for the textures, or didn't "anticipate" them, it needs to pull from the disk. When that has to occur, which seems to be frequent in stream-loaded texture heavy games, having an SSD makes a difference.
While this may be measurable on PC, unless you have a SOC machine it's not really comparable to the PS4 Pro's shared RAM.
Looks like it makes a fair difference on the xbox.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3253-xbox-one-x-external-…
I honestly wouldn't bother and I own a pro.
Depends, for $80 why not?
I have the PS4 Pro and I use a 250GB SSD as external. I only move my most played games to the SSD and my load times are almost halved. For context though, still not as good as PC. As an example my Assassin's Creed Unity save game load would be 43s on the internal SSHD and on the external SSD it is 23s. So almost halved but still a 23s wait.
Fast travel on the internal SSHD is 33s and on the SSD it is 17s, so still a wait. The initial game load stayed on 43s on both the SSHD and the SSD, could be that the game startup files were cached on the 8gb SSD buffer on the internal.
Depends, for $80 why not?
Well, it would have to be $156. $80 only gets you 250GB which is half what the launch PS4 had for storage. 500GB is half of what a PS4 Pro's included HDD holds but it's useable if you manage your games and delete when you're done with them.
He suggested using it as an external in a USB3 enclosure and just moving the most played games to the 250GB. That's a pretty good idea.
If you are after few second faster, then yeah.
This is how I always be able to play Darth Vader everytime in SW Battlefront 2's Heroes vs Villains mode, thx to the faster 2 seconds loading. :D
You get to the menu before everyone else and get first dibs?
Yup! As the counter is still showing around 2-10 secs left and I'm already in the menu.
And sshhh don't tell anyone. ;)
Anyone know if these would work with a HP Elitebook 840? I'm told the following does work https://www.amazon.com/Kingston-480GB-Solid-SA400S37-480G/dp… but not sure if any of these would be compatible?
Your link goes to a 2.5" SATA drive so these will work.
thanks mate
Would cashrewards work with the code?
Yes
Awesome, thanks
I have spare slots in my NAS. Would these be suitable for writing surveillance footage?
Until they wear out, sure.
SSDs have a specified endurance in bytes written. Figure out how much drive space per unit time your footage uses and do the calc to see how long the drive will last.
With the specified endurance in bytes written - will Windows give any sort of alerts in advance of this or is the typical scenario that it just one day turns to black in the middle of you using it?
I don't run Windows much, so I'm not sure what the default behaviour is. I have seen SMART diagnostic warnings, but I can remember if they were part of Windows or some third-party software (maybe a drive controller or motherboard utility?).
Anyway, if you turn on SMART monitoring on the drive there is bound to be some freeware that will give you an alert before it runs out.
In any case it won't just suddenly vaporise all your data, just that new writes will be corrupted and you'll almost certainly get OS error messages at that point.
Depending on which NAS you have, you may be better off using the SSD as a cache (e.g. QNAP SSD acceleration).
WD green avoid for NAS, use the red. In fact avoid WD green drives.
In fact avoid WD drives.
Corrected and +1'd
i think you can retire the stay away from WD green advice
this is a totally different product, besides they retired the green series mechanical drives ages ago, no doubt to everyone claiming they were shit when of course they werent
Unless you want to pay the premium for SLC flash, DO NOT use solid state for a surveillance system.
Wow these are fantastic prices. I rmeebr about 2 or 3 years ago when an 80GB SSD was about $120… Glad to see these becoming more affordable.
Remember this is also an extremely slow drive, relative to other popular SSD models like the Crucial MX500 and Samsung 850 EVO. That's part of the reasoning for the cheap price.
extremely slow drive
You weren’t wrong. Write speeds are slower than a WD Black
Read speeds are decent and close to Samsung tho
Easy enough to change the 7200rpm hdd in my desktop over to one of these ssd drives? I assume that I will get a noticeable speed increase with startup and general use?
Procedure:
Backup system/Image System/Prepare to reinstall all your files.
Open case, take out HDD. Install SSD.
Reimage/Reinstall windows to SSD.
Profit??? (Boot faster)
Bonus points if you reuse the HDD for magnetic storage (not as a boot drive).
So yes, simple. I literally did this earlier today, whole process took me about 45min and 40min of that was just waiting as the image is written both ways.
thanks cheese510. I will grab one and see how I go!
Cheers Cheese510, can you share what program you used for creating image of drive?
Macrium Reflect if HDD to SSD
I use acronis true image, but it isnt free.
Western Digital provides a free version of Acronis as long as one of the drives you're working with is WD brand, here.
:)
Better off leaving the old HDD in and doing a simple migration. Would be faster and easier. In a desktop you should have more than enough spare SATA ports to run both hard drives.
Yes, I always tell people that upgrading your boot drive from a mechanical drive to SSD is one of the simplest upgrade that you can do to your PC that has the biggest performance improvement you can feel.
Lots of articles online to assist you, if you're on Windows 7 and above, the OS basically has tools to make it easy for you.
Microsoft's Windows download pages:
- Windows 10: https://www.microsoft.com/en-au/software-download/windows10
- Windows 7: https://www.microsoft.com/en-au/software-download/windows7definitely… huge different, even with the cheapest SSD
Do you need to relicense windows 10 in this example?
A simple drive swap doesn't flag anything. Windows 10 will auto-activate as soon as you connect to the internet.
Thanks Dave, this triggered me to buy to replace the OS drive for my HTPC (HP N40).
Not very difficult but not as easy as everyone makes it out to be. If you're comfortable messing around in BIOS (may not be needed) and have backed up, reinstalled windows before you'll be good.
If not, I'm sure you can work it out. Just be warned it isn't always just "plug and play" levels of easy.
Thanks OP.
Green should work very well with an office PC.
I haven't researched SDD's for several years, the last one I bought was a Samsung 840 EVO. Do these WD Greens have a good rep?
Yes.
They are shit.
http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/411798/WDC-WDS120G2G0…
Hence the price.
For reference, the old 840 EVO has about double the performance of WD green.
http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Samsung-840-Evo-120GB/Rating/18…Thank you for the links, and I'm glad my Samsung is still holding its own.
They're definitely a slower SSD compared to other SSD's, but still much faster than the standard 5,400rpm HDD.
If money is tight, then it'll be a decent step-up from HDD. But, if you can swing it, you'd be happier with the Evo or Crucial line, for sure.
Thanks, exactly what I was scrolling down the comments to find out so your a legend in my books today
Can't find a recent deal with either of those below $100 and I'm that tight at the moment I'll be taking this then.
Reputation is fine, performance with these specific ones isn't there though. My 840 evo is still happily punching along too.
They're significantly slower.
Needed a drive to tinker with (long story… don't ask…)
The $43.60 to get my machine going is at a pricepoint where I don't even have to think twice!
Thanks, grabbed a 240gb for the optiplex last deal. Now I need a deal for a 1050/ti to replace my old 9500gt haha.
I've got a 4GB GTX 1050 Ti (low profile, so should fit the optiplex I guess) from a deal last year.
Yours for $170 if you come and pick it up.Hi mate, I'm interested in your graphic card, where is it located ?
Melbourne (inner suburbs)
@u9tvfr: After a quick look at BubbLeT, etangzhang and your profiles, you would get priority since you're actually in Melbourne lol
Quick benchmark search seems to shwo the Kingston A400 (few bucks more) is a lot better performance than the green. Take this info as you will. Good price tho op.
Yep, I got a A400 earlier in the year when it was ~$60, quite fast in bootup.
Though both the Green and the A400 are budget models, I think they do make excellent upgrades for older or less used PCs that still have HDDs.
So, what about the Blue (compared to Green or Red)?
Red? There's no RED SSD's out.
The Blues are about 2x the speed of the Greens, but the Blues are yet still 33% slower than the Crucial MX500.
Overall OK if you are upgrading from a mechanical drive, the Green is not a bad budget choice for most users. The Blue is what I'd personally recommend.
If like speed then look into NVME drives such as the WD Black PCIE SSD.
damn i want them so bad but i dont need them atm!
Wanna buy but too lazy to head down to the ATM
fakAre these good for a ripping CDs to and playing thru an amp or are standard HDDs sufficient?
Standard HDD would be fine, that isnt terribly IO intensive if its the only thing running off the drive.
Thanks!
Guys, I am new to this - would this fit on a laptop or for desktop drives only.
My main problem is I want to increase my laptop processing speed and was told this is a good/economical way to do so - correct?most (say, 95 percent) of laptops have a 2.5" inch bay for SSD's and drives. You can easily find out, just by unscrewing the bottom out of your laptop if it has a removable panel.
There are a small number of very compact ultrabooks that only take an M.2 drive, but these are not very common.
thanks scrimshaw, I have standard 15.6"acer aspire so I think all good.
Will get 1 and give it a go!!
Cheers
I know most people here are speaking of cloning their drives, but personally, I always reinstall for other people rather than clone. There's a lot to be said for a new, fresh system, even considering the reinstall of programs factored in.
Imho
PS: everyone should check for & install the newest SSD firmware prior to installing the OS.
- 1
- 2
The price of WD portable SSDs look attractive too.