bit-tech.net

Kingston SSD NOW V+ Series 128GB Review

Comments 1 to 25 of 30

Reply
benji2412 17th February 2010, 11:48 Quote
I'll be honest, thanks to the massive price rise in SSDs I'm just not interested in them anymore. I was going to purchase one just before the price rise. Now, quite frankly I'm going to have to wait. I can't see any massive performance enhancement I'd benefit from apart from windows loading more quickly. That of course I'm not bothered about because just under 2 minutes isn't like waiting 10. Besides, a few seconds here and there off level load times and no noise? Not for that price and certainly not for the massive hit in storage. 2010 year of the SSD? It certainly could have been..........
memeroot 17th February 2010, 11:51 Quote
still to expensive I'm afraid.... will like many people wait and see...
Baz 17th February 2010, 11:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by benji2412
I'll be honest, thanks to the massive price rise in SSDs I'm just not interested in them anymore. I was going to purchase one just before the price rise. Now, quite frankly I'm going to have to wait. I can't see any massive performance enhancement I'd benefit from apart from windows loading more quickly. That of course I'm not bothered about because just under 2 minutes isn't like waiting 10. Besides, a few seconds here and there off level load times and no noise? Not for that price and certainly not for the massive hit in storage. 2010 year of the SSD? It certainly could have been..........

I'm inclined to agree :( NAND pricing is really hurting the mass market appeal of SSDs. When the M225 launched last year it was £225 for 120G of storage - the same drive now costs £325!

You really do see the benefits once you've used one though - faster boots, application loads, - everything just feels so much more responsive and smoother than with even a fast hard disk drive. I can see your point though - £270 is a lot to pay for the privilege.
yakyb 17th February 2010, 12:06 Quote
I'm toying with the idea of purchasing one for some DB testing to see what improvements i get on reads compared to a standard Hdd setup but after checking the recent prices i'm going to have to wait

is there any indication of when these prices may start to fall?
Baz 17th February 2010, 12:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by yakyb
I'm toying with the idea of purchasing one for some DB testing to see what improvements i get on reads compared to a standard Hdd setup but after checking the recent prices i'm going to have to wait

is there any indication of when these prices may start to fall?

The new drive controllers should start to hit late march/april but the prices are very much dictated by NAND production, which remains annoyingly erratic.
[PUNK] crompers 17th February 2010, 12:10 Quote
I am at the point now of buying an f3 1TB having waited the best part of a year for a reasonably priced 120GB SSD. I dont even want incredible performance, just decent and within £150. It seems the market conpires against us at the moment though so i like others will be waiting for something decent to come along.

Having said that i do appreciate the efforts of kingston to make an affordable drive, even if NAND pricing makes it pretty much impossible right now.
Bad_cancer 17th February 2010, 12:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by yakyb


snip

is there any indication of when these prices may start to fall?

^ yeah when nand manufacturers stop being greedy *******s. :(
barrkel 17th February 2010, 12:17 Quote
The Intel drives still look unmatched from a software developer build perspective. You need high throughput, low latency random reads and writes to keep compilers and linkers busy. Moving from a 10K Raptor to an Intel X25-M (G0 though) helped reduce build times on the dev tree I work with from 13 minutes to closer to 7.5 minutes. For me, the only pages that matter are 8 and 9, and with the build process spewing out several GB of data over its several minute run, the random write speed of the X25-M is head and shoulders above the rest.
Bindibadgi 17th February 2010, 12:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad_cancer
^ yeah when nand manufacturers stop being greedy *******s. :(

After years of having record low DRAM prices, many of the companies are just now breaking even unfortunately. If we want them to stay in business to have actual competition, the prices need to stay, otherwise it could be a lot worse...

barrkel - unfortunately your G1 won't have and will never get TRIM, so your performance will drop through the floor, even if it is faster than before :( Yay for Intel :(
barrkel 17th February 2010, 12:25 Quote
Oops, I meant G1, not G0.
Bad_cancer 17th February 2010, 12:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
After years of having record low DRAM prices, many of the companies are just now breaking even unfortunately. If we want them to stay in business to have actual competition, the prices need to stay, otherwise it could be a lot worse...

I concede the point, but was it necessary to skyrocket the prices so much in one go?

I suppose the argument is: "Ahhhh a financial crisis, but we have nand prices rising!!! Lets cover the losses now before its too late!!!"

:( doesn't help us much though does it?
yakyb 17th February 2010, 12:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi

After years of having record low DRAM prices, many of the companies are just now breaking even unfortunately. If we want them to stay in business to have actual competition, the prices need to stay, otherwise it could be a lot worse...

whilst i agree to an extent that they should be charging what they cost to produce them + profit margin, constant improvements arise in order to produce cheaper Larger faster products.

Tbh i would be happy with today's performance + Size but being built on tomorrows tech (therefore cheaper) how long until this starts occur is what i was asking

is this likely to be a year, 2 years?
MitchBomcanhao 17th February 2010, 12:50 Quote
the cool thing about this article is that my crappy laptop from 2007 with a not so good hard drive pulled from an external storage product is faster booting up windows 7 home premium than the high-spec machine used for testing xD
rickysio 17th February 2010, 13:00 Quote
Don't know if it's just me, but my WDC Blue 320 GB drive boots (win 7 ultimate x64) faster than the Samsung. ;)
Baz 17th February 2010, 13:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by MitchBomcanhao
the cool thing about this article is that my crappy laptop from 2007 with a not so good hard drive pulled from an external storage product is faster booting up windows 7 home premium than the high-spec machine used for testing xD

The boot times listed include the bios screens and the various SATA controllers on the motherboard - it's more for a comparison than a drag race. If we were to disable all the extra controllers and boot screens (As i've done on my home system) boot times drop accordingly. For example, on our old Vista test system we used to get boot times of sub 25 seconds with the SSDs! It's all a matter of context.
BigM2006 17th February 2010, 13:11 Quote
do you have a review of the crucial m225 that you talk about in the last paragraph?

I've had a search around, but cant seem to find one?
Phil Rhodes 17th February 2010, 13:13 Quote
Quite commonly we're getting information that "drives with controllers X and Y are OK", where "OK" in context means "will not explode violently after thirty-four seconds of use".

This is complicated enough by the tendency to buy a set of PCBs and stick your logo on it, and yet again because the people who make the controllers (which is what actually matters) are not the same people who sell the drives. Given that I can't really go into a shop and buy an SSD armed with a screwdriver and a magnifying glass, can we have a table that matches up the names under which these things are sold with which controller they use? And whether that controller offers a decent lifetime without running under windows 7 and not on a RAID?
Baz 17th February 2010, 13:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigM2006
do you have a review of the crucial m225 that you talk about in the last paragraph?

I've had a search around, but cant seem to find one?

We've not reviewed it on the site - it's physically identical inside to the OCZ vertex and has similar levels of support (ie faster firmware releases)
do_it_anyway 17th February 2010, 13:29 Quote
Want an SSD
Want a bank manager who doesn't hate me.

Frustratingly I can't apparently have both. And no SSD has (yet) proved to me that the performance benfefits outweigh the inital costs.
Sure, they are palpably faster than a mechanical HDD, but a 30sec decrease in boot time, and some quicker game loads, don't save me enough time yet to justify the cost. Especially when playing online, cos my F3 loads quicker than other players older drives, and I just end up waiting for them to load anyway.
MitchBomcanhao 17th February 2010, 14:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
The boot times listed include the bios screens and the various SATA controllers on the motherboard - it's more for a comparison than a drag race. If we were to disable all the extra controllers and boot screens (As i've done on my home system) boot times drop accordingly. For example, on our old Vista test system we used to get boot times of sub 25 seconds with the SSDs! It's all a matter of context.
yes I understand, my own desktop takes a while going through the sata/raid stuff, but the actual OS booting time is fast.
i really don't care about cold boot times, though, as i always hibernate my pcs, which is much faster.
FelixTech 17th February 2010, 17:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by do_it_anyway
Want an SSD
Want a bank manager who doesn't hate me.

Frustratingly I can't apparently have both. And no SSD has (yet) proved to me that the performance benfefits outweigh the inital costs.
Sure, they are palpably faster than a mechanical HDD, but a 30sec decrease in boot time, and some quicker game loads, don't save me enough time yet to justify the cost. Especially when playing online, cos my F3 loads quicker than other players older drives, and I just end up waiting for them to load anyway.

As long as you can select your team before 'Waiting for players' ends, what else matters? :P
frontline 17th February 2010, 18:39 Quote
Glad i purchased my Crucial M225 just before the price hike started. The windows boot times are impressive and particularly noticeable when installing updates etc, but the main benefit is just the overall impression of system responsiveness when compared to a HDD.
kenco_uk 17th February 2010, 20:20 Quote
Does the X25-M feel so much faster than a Vertex? I feel as though it's six of one... with the Vertex you're getting 'higher' write speeds, but Intel's offering, from various places on the net, is said to feel so much faster. Does it really just boil down to the random access speeds?
Skiddywinks 17th February 2010, 22:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenco_uk
Does it really just boil down to the random access speeds?

Basically. Sequential anythings are only really useful for copy/writing files.

I have an X-25M G2 160GB, and the only times I can think of when I would be outpaced by any other SSD is when copying something to it, but then you are more likely to be limited to the read of the other drive, so unless that is another SSD, you have no reason (other than price difference) to not go Intel.
Makaveli 18th February 2010, 03:33 Quote
Amen Brother,

I went X-25M G2 160GB and never going back. My previous Windows install is on a Western digital 640GB drive and you can feel and see the difference as i dual boot both for the time being. Also helps to show doubters why the SSD was worth every cent. For some of the the graphs will never do you justice you have to use a system with an SSD. It also depends on how you use your computer if you just browse the net and use one application at a time then stick to a platter based Hard drive.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums