bit-tech.net

Adata S511 240GB Review

Comments 1 to 17 of 17

Reply
damien c 22nd September 2011, 09:29 Quote
Not a bad performer then really but I will stick to OCZ for my next build and give my 120gb Corsair Force 3 drive to my dad.

This drive will suit those people who are just interested in saving abit of money but don't want the drop in speed that the M4 suffer's.

All in all a good drive but could do with being cheaper to actually try and get some of the pie from OCZ.
mejobloggs 22nd September 2011, 09:33 Quote
Not bad, not bad at all

Plus anything that drives the prices of SSDs down is great
geebee 22nd September 2011, 10:06 Quote
damien c i would stay clear of the new ocz ssd's for the moment as i have 1 and the firmware aint great at the mo system hang ups bsod just hopeing that the new firmware v2.11 runs better(updated last night so will let ya no how it goes. last time it work for a week then all the problems kicked in as with many people who as 1 check the ocz forums to see what i mean :( )
damien c 22nd September 2011, 10:31 Quote
Cheer's will look around then when I am ready for a new one, when I do my next build.
geebee 22nd September 2011, 10:52 Quote
and it aint looking good damien just had my first bsod while updating look like i might be going back to the trusty western digital :(
mediapcAddict 22nd September 2011, 13:33 Quote
While I appreciate all respectable reviews of SSD's I wish bit-tech/custom pc would consider doing a round up of cheaper ssd's. I currently have a use for a 64gb ssds.

To keep costs down I was planning on installating the OS and the programs that require constant access ( like broswers, caches and a few other programs I have etc ) on the ssd and installing the lesser needed programs ( like media players, games, video converters etc) on a seperate hard disk ( prob samsung f3 of WD black ). however without a decent round up review I don't know which drive is the best for me.

so how about a round up of the best SSD's under £100 and the best under £150 please?

we'd all have 256gb ssd if we could afford them or justify them over mechanical disks. However until then lets rememeber that for a lot readerss looking at reviews for expensive ssds is like a school boy looking through a ferrari sales brochure. It just aint going to happen.
damien c 22nd September 2011, 13:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by geebee
and it aint looking good damien just had my first bsod while updating look like i might be going back to the trusty western digital :(

Well I have had no issues with my Corsair Force 3 and I think it's not much slower than the OCZ Vertex 3, currently running it on a overclocked 2500K @ 4.8ghz and from the post screen appearing it takes around 10-20 second's to get in to windows, not timed it yet but it's quick.
llamafur 22nd September 2011, 14:25 Quote
Some day I'll buy an ssd for my netbook. They're still too expensive.
Bungletron 22nd September 2011, 17:40 Quote
Quote:
ADATA is the latest entrant onto the market, with its S511 range of SSDs looking to offer the most affordable route to the SandForce 2281’s 500MB/sec read speeds.

As you have already discovered, why bother with SandForce's 500MB/sec read speads when you can have the Crucial M4's instead.
kzinti1 23rd September 2011, 01:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
Not a bad performer then really but I will stick to OCZ for my next build and give my 120gb Corsair Force 3 drive to my dad.

This drive will suit those people who are just interested in saving abit of money but don't want the drop in speed that the M4 suffer's.

All in all a good drive but could do with being cheaper to actually try and get some of the pie from OCZ.

I'm rather interested in "the drop in speed that the M4 suffer's." I haven't a clue as to what you're referring to. I've never had a single problem with any Crucial SSD and have just bought my 2nd M4 256 GB, own and use four C3 128 GB. MAG's (both internal and in an external box), three or 4 C3 64 GB. and only buy hdd's as mass storage and back-up.
Then again, I'm not looking for any supersonic speeds. Just fast, utterly reliable SSD's which is exactly what Crucial sells.
I wouldn't use anything from OCZ if it was given to me. They have the most reported problems of any SSD, cost far too much and have the worst support of any manufacturer I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with.
I'm really no fanboy of Crucial, I hate their memory sticks, and will buy and try any brand of SSD, (other than OCZ, of course) if it's purported to have the reliability and cost-effectiveness of a Crucial.
slothy89 23rd September 2011, 06:25 Quote
OCZ is up to 2.13 for the guy talking about firmware issues.

If this adata drive is stable, then who cares if they don't release an update? If it ain't broke...
badders 23rd September 2011, 08:51 Quote
Harry, Nice review, though I do take issue with this from the front page (sorry, I don't like to be that guy, but):
Quote:
This is the reason that the drive's capacity is advertised as 240GB rather than 256GB, and why it boasts a formatted capacity of 224GB; 14 per cent of the available NAND is reserved for over-provisioning.

I think the 240Gb -> 224Gb formatted is due to the old Gigabytes/Gibibytes marketing trick. 240 Gigabytes is 223.5 Gibibytes, which is what windows will display.
This would mean that only 6.6% (256Gb vs 240Gb) is reserved for over provisioning - the rest is lost to the gods of binary vs decimal.
1-0-1 24th September 2011, 02:19 Quote
Well, ordered the 120GB version as I need an upgrade from my dying first generation Western Digital Raptor. Even though my motherboard can only support 3Gb/s (GA P55-USB3L) it still would be a helluva lot of faster than the current HD or any non-SDD upgrade.
Being able to now deal with more than 75GB will be also welcomed. Even 120GB is small there is no way I will ever go back to anything less than that for a boot and essential program disk. With things like the Windows 7 the windows winsxs folder growing, some game folder taking up huge amount of space 75GB will get very small very quickly.
Baz 26th September 2011, 12:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by badders
Harry, Nice review, though I do take issue with this from the front page (sorry, I don't like to be that guy, but):
Quote:
This is the reason that the drive's capacity is advertised as 240GB rather than 256GB, and why it boasts a formatted capacity of 224GB; 14 per cent of the available NAND is reserved for over-provisioning.

I think the 240Gb -> 224Gb formatted is due to the old Gigabytes/Gibibytes marketing trick. 240 Gigabytes is 223.5 Gibibytes, which is what windows will display.
This would mean that only 6.6% (256Gb vs 240Gb) is reserved for over provisioning - the rest is lost to the gods of binary vs decimal.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2010/06/25/sandforce-ssd-test/2

the second half of the page helps here - 256GB of NAND has a capacity of 274,877,906,944 bytes, not 256,000,000,000, so the stated spare area is corrent.
badders 27th September 2011, 09:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/storage/2010/06/25/sandforce-ssd-test/2

the second half of the page helps here - 256GB of NAND has a capacity of 274,877,906,944 bytes, not 256,000,000,000, so the stated spare area is corrent.

Sweet, cheers!
tonschk 30th September 2011, 09:32 Quote
For me the SSD are still a bit expensive and apparently not fully 100% reliable

.
bitdummy 1st October 2011, 08:37 Quote
has anyone heard of Bitmicro? They do make SSD that expandable in size.. and im wondering if they are affordable
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