Showing Results: Most Recent
This review is from: Samsung 250GB 750 EVO SSD SATA III 2.5" MZ-750250BW
Pros: See other thoughts.
Cons: See other thoughts.
Other Thoughts: The EVO 750 series was originally designed for the OEM (system builders) channel, but has found its way into the retail market. Performance wise, the EVO 750s are decent drives. But a questionable value when compared to the EVO 850 series.
The EVO 750 and 850 drives benchmark about the same on Sequential Read and Write, but there are significant differences between the two.
Warranty: EVO 750 three years, EVO 850 five years
NAND: The EVO 750s use Samsung's older 2D Planar NAND, the EVO 850s use Samsung's new 3D Vertical NAND.
TBW (Terabytes Written): Because of the 3D NAND, the EVO 850s can sustain a significantly greater number of Writes as compared to the EVO 750 series. 70 TBW for the 250 GB EVO 750 vs. 150 TWB for the 250 GB EVO 850. In other words, the same capacity 850 EVO has a bit more than double the expected life.
4K Random Write Performance: The EVO 850 is about 12.5% faster.
Samsung's suggested retail price for the 250 GB EVO 750 is $74.95, but I have seen it advertised for as much at $89.95.
Summation: The EVO 750s are good little drives re: performance, but the EVO 850 series enjoys a significantly longer warranty (40%), better Flash/3D NAND, and more than DOUBLE the TBW rating.
For these reasons, I would suggest that, comparing capacity to capacity, the EVO 750s should be a solid $20-25 less than the EVO 850 series in order to be a value.
Pros: See other thoughts.
Cons: See other thoughts.
Other Thoughts: Robert P: " Windows 10 started occasionally popping up alerts that the temperature of the drive was getting a wee bit high. This happened especially during extensive write operations (usually involving a few GB of data in one shot at high transfer rates). This might be due to limited air circulation in that area of the Aegis case, but I can't be sure."
Robert, You are correct. I had the same issue with the XG3 (OEM) version of this drive and solved it by installing three small copper RAM heat sinks on the Flash and Controller modules (I had to shave down the height a little to get them to fit between the drive and the bottom cover of my notebook). These heat sinks are just about the width and length of the Flash and Controller modules.
I ordered the copper heat sinks from Newegg. They come with adhesive thermal tape on the bottom.
This review is from: Silicon Power 128GB Blaze B05 USB 3.0 Flash Drive (SP128GBUF3B05V1K)
Pros: I purchased this drive in January but used it very little until recently. It was then I discovered that although I had purchased the 128 GB model, and the drive I received did say 128 GB on the case, it was actually the 32 GB version. Perhaps mine was made at the end of a run and got installed in the wrong case.
I wish to give Newegg a very positive shout-out here. When I brought the error (not their fault) to their attention they FedEx’ed me the 128 GB version and told me to just keep the 32 GB drive. Outstanding customer service.
On with the review:
I also have an ADATA 128 GB flash drive and since the Silicon Power was in the same price range, I thought I would run benchmarks to see if either was better than the other. Both of these drives fall into the “value” category rather than the high performance category (good for the money, but not anywhere near the performance of, say, the SanDisk 128 GB Extreme model – which is about double the price).
The outcome was very interesting, and unexpected.
Using ATTO benchmarking software, the SP recorded 157 MB/s Sequential Read and 99 MB/s Sequential Write.
The ADATA recorded 111 MB/s Sequential Read and 116 MB/s Sequential Write (unusual for the Write speed to be higher than the Read speed).
Since I was mostly interested in the Write speed, it appeared the ADATA was slightly the better choice.
However, when I actually began transferring files, the SP beat the ADATA every time, and by quite substantial margins.
So, using DiskBench software (a free download), I measured the actual transfer time and transfer rate (in MB/s) it took to transfer various files sizes (both drives empty and formatted to NTSF).
As it turned out, irrespective of the ATTO Sequential benchmarks, the Silicon Power 128 GB tested far better on file transfers of 4, 8 and 12 GBs. The average transfer rate for the SP was 67.1 MB/s vs. 35.27 for the ADATA – the SP was an amazing 47.4% faster. In one case, this resulted in a 1 ½ minute faster transfer time for the SP.
So, performance wise, the Silicon Power 128 GB flash drive appears to be a much better value.
(If you are interested in an even better “value” drive, the HP 128 GB model 702 – made by PNY -- was able to maintain an average transfer rate of 104.8 MB/s and is only about $10.00 more. That is 36% faster than the SP.)
The Silicon Power 128 GB flash drive is highly recommended in its price range.
Cons: Minor: The case is not as substantial/solid feeling as the ADATA but is not flimsy, either.
Other Thoughts: Both the Silicon Power and ADATA drives come with lifetime warranties.READ FULL REVIEW