Skip to: | |

Newegg.com - A great place to buy computers, computer parts, electronics, software, accessories, and DVDs online. With great prices, fast shipping, and top-rated customer service - once you know, you Newegg.

If you are reading this message, Please click this link to reload this page.(Do not use your browser's "Refresh" button). Please email us if you're running the latest version of your browser and you still see this message.

Newegg.com - Computer Parts, Laptops, Electronics, HDTVs, Digital Cameras and More!

Home
Home > 
Rob H.'s Profile > 
All Reviews
  • Find Reviews
  • Find

Showing Results: Most Recent

Silicon Power Slim S55 2.5
  • eggxpert iconEggXpert

4 out of 5 eggs Decent value performance from Silicon Power 08/20/2016

This review is from: Silicon Power Slim S55 2.5" 480GB SATA III TLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) SP480GBSS3S55S25

Pros: -No-frills design & packaging
-Good value
-3-year warranty without a premium price to go with it

Cons: Minor Con: As described in the Other section, I use SSD System drives and mechanical drives for storage. In this case, I have 3-2TB WD Black Drives in RAID0, which easily has a transfer speed of 250 MB/s. Yet, when I transfer files between the system & storage drives, the transfer slows down to ~100 MB/s and, as I look at other reviews for the S55, I see I am not alone. I suspect the controller is the culprit.

Something to be aware of/Minor Con: As with many SSDs these days, there are no extras with this drive, not even a plastic shim to make it thicker if needed. Because some laptop mounting options depend on the thickness of the drive being a certain amount, make sure you plan ahead with this drive.

Other Thoughts: Whenever possible, I configure desktop systems that have a SSD for the system and application files and a mechanical drive (or drives in RAID) for the media files (Documents, Music, Video, Games). For that purpose, a 120GB SSD is perfect for most of my systems and several of my media systems do great with a 60GB SSD for the same purpose. In my main rig, I also run some Virtual Machines (VMs) and a larger system drive is useful because I prefer to store the VMs on the System SSD and run them from there. Overall, I have been extremely impressed with the write speeds on this SSD. I upgraded my system drive from a S55 240GB by cloning Windows 10 Pro x64 over to the S55 480GB. Here are the comparisons using CrystalDiskMark:

SP S55 SP240GBSS3S55S25FR
Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 560.289 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 505.062 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 334.575 MB/s [ 81683.3 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 354.870 MB/s [ 86638.2 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 518.677 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 481.297 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 33.207 MB/s [ 8107.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 130.412 MB/s [ 31838.9 IOPS]

SP S55 SP480GBSS3S55S25
Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 561.415 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 524.264 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 337.789 MB/s [ 82468.0 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 348.332 MB/s [ 85042.0 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 510.259 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 492.884 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 33.422 MB/s [ 8159.7 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 126.231 MB/s [ 30818.1 IOPS]

The S55 240GB was 83% full and the S55 480GB was 39% full and, as you can see in the performance specs, they are on par with each other. SP’s 3-year warranty is good, but there are some SSD drives that have as much as 10 years, so that is something to consider. After this initial testing, I added the VMs and used the drive for a few weeks, where its performance was pretty decent, except for the issue discussed under Cons. At that point, the drive was 51% full and had time to do its thing regarding TRIM, garbage collection, etc. I was curious how the drive would perform and ran the same test, again using CrystalDiskMark:

SP S55 SP480GBSS3S55S25
Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 561.457 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 533.684 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 338.176 MB/s [ 82562.5 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 357.162 MB/s [ 87197.8 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 502.456 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 488.046 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 32.544 MB/s [ 7945.3 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 129.043 MB/s [ 31504.6 IOPS]

As you can see the results are pretty close to the same. Overall, I would ding it a half an egg for the transfer slowness described in the cons, but since I cannot do that, I will give it 4 eggs for the value coupled with good speeds under most conditions.

READ FULL REVIEW
Silicon Power Slim S55 2.5
  • eggxpert iconEggXpert

5 out of 5 eggs A solid value performer which improved over time! 08/20/2016

This review is from: Silicon Power Slim S55 2.5" 240GB SATA III TLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) SP240GBSS3S55S25FR

Pros: -No-frills design & packaging
-Good value
-3-year warranty without a premium price to go with it
-Performance improved over time (See details in the Other section)

Cons: Something to be aware of/Minor Con: As with many SSDs these days, there are no extras with this drive, not even a plastic shim to make it thicker if needed. Because some laptop mounting options depend on the thickness of the drive being a certain amount, make sure you plan ahead with this drive.

Other Thoughts: Whenever possible, I configure desktop systems that have a SSD for the system and application files and a mechanical drive (or drives in RAID) for the media files (Documents, Music, Video, Games). For that purpose, the 120GB SSD is perfect for most of my systems and several of my media systems do great with a 60GB SSD for the same purpose. In my main rig, I also run some Virtual Machines (VMs) and a 240GB drive is useful because I prefer to store the VMs on the System SSD and run them from there. Overall, I have been extremely impressed with the write speeds on this SSD. I upgraded my system drive from an Intel 535 128GB SSD by cloning Windows 10 Pro x64 over to the S55 and I am always happy when the whole clone only takes about 2 minutes from start to finish. Here are the comparisons using CrystalDiskMark:

INTEL SSDSC2BW120H6
Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 509.489 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 151.081 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 120.857 MB/s [ 29506.1 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 135.986 MB/s [ 33199.7 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 440.605 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 152.068 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 22.048 MB/s [ 5382.8 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 106.854 MB/s [ 26087.4 IOPS]

SP S55 SP240GBSS3S55S25FR
Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 404.367 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 393.599 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 272.464 MB/s [ 66519.5 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 235.106 MB/s [ 57398.9 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 381.058 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 370.177 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 32.159 MB/s [ 7851.3 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 92.144 MB/s [ 22496.1 IOPS]

The Intel was 75% full and the S55 was 25% full and, as you can see in the performance specs, the S55 trounces the Intel. Of course, the reason behind why I buy Intel SSDs is for a long history of solid performance and their 5-Year warranty. SP’s 3-year warranty is good, but there are some SSD drives that have as much as 10 years, so that is something to consider. After this initial testing, I added the VMs and used the drive for a month, where its performance was rock-solid throughout. At that point, the drive was 83% full and had time to do its thing regarding TRIM, garbage collection, etc. I was curious how the drive would perform and ran the same test, again using CrystalDiskMark:

SP S55 SP240GBSS3S55S25FR (A MONTH LATER AND AFTER HEAVY USAGE)
Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 560.289 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 505.062 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 334.575 MB/s [ 81683.3 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 354.870 MB/s [ 86638.2 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 518.677 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 481.297 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 33.207 MB/s [ 8107.2 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 130.412 MB/s [ 31838.9 IOPS]

I was not expecting these results and I am not even sure how it performed this much better! Anyway, it did and I happily give this 5 eggs for the value coupled with top-notch speeds.

READ FULL REVIEW
SteelSeries Rival 100 Optical Gaming Mouse - Sakura Purple
  • eggxpert iconEggXpert

5 out of 5 eggs SteelSeries impresses me again 08/20/2016

This review is from: SteelSeries Rival 100 Optical Gaming Mouse - Sakura Purple

Pros: -Nice feel with slightly textured sides/edges & satin top finish
-Unique color scheme
-Buttons have the happy balance of being reliable and not too “clicky” (noisy)
-Happy medium*, size-wise
-Side buttons are well placed, per my preference
-Mouse surface pads are easily removed/replaced

Cons: -Possible Con: Side buttons are right-hand-centric (Not an issue for me)
-Possible Con: Fairly lightweight (Again, not an issue for me)

Other Thoughts: I have been using mice continuously since 1984, when I first got a Macintosh 128K. Like most, I transitioned to optical mice as soon as they were available around the turn of the century and quickly became a fan of Microsoft’s optical mice, a brand that I still use today. (There are some Intellimouse Optical mice still in use around the house that are well over 15 years old!). Over the years, I have also come to appreciate Logitech’s mice and have realized, overall, that mid-range mice meet most of our needs pretty well. My son, who has more heavy into gaming for ~10 years, eventually bought a Razer mouse, but otherwise optical mice have met the need. I don’t do any serious gaming myself, but use mice many hours a day, every day for my work and also for my hobbies of editing digital media & graphics. I have also bought a few SteelSeries products (headphones, mouse pads) since their inception and have found them to be well made & durable. So there is my background regarding Steel Series and mice…

That being said, I can safely say this is a good quality, mid-range mouse worthy of the name SteelSeries. In their lineup, it is the lowest in the range, but I wouldn’t consider it a “budget mouse” in any way. I have been using this mouse for a few months and have found it to be solid performer, with no issues, tracking or otherwise.

*In the Pros, I said that this mouse was the happy medium, in regards to its size. I have big hands and, over time (and because I use a Microsoft Arc Touch mouse much of the time), I have come to not use my mouse as a hand rest. Instead, I bridge my hand over the mouse, resting my thumb, ring finger and pinky on either side of the mouse, positioning my other two fingers over the two, main mouse buttons. When I move it around, I use the heel of my hand as the “base” and the thumb and pinky to grip/move it. The plus to this method is that it really doesn’t matter what size the mouse is, although I do prefer them in the medium size range.

Although I do like the way the SteelSeries logo on this mouse glows with a slow, pulsation, it wasn’t really a selling point for me. I imagine some of the reasoning behind it is that their competitors have the same type of thing. Overall, I am giving this mouse 5 eggs for the price-to-performance i.e. value aspect.

READ FULL REVIEW

Rob H.'s Profile

Display Name: Rob H.

Date Joined: 03/11/03

Achievements:

  • neweggTop 1000 Reviewer
  • newegg100 Reviews
  • Reviews: 104
  • Helpfulness: 47
  • First Review: 07/12/11
  • Last Review: 08/20/16
If the Adobe Reader does not appear when you click on a link for a PDF file, you can download Adobe Reader from the Adobe web site.