Budget SSD options

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by tubeexperience, Oct 18, 2016.

  1. tubeexperience, Oct 18, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2016

    tubeexperience macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #1
    I know that the popular recommendation for SSD recommendations are the Samsung 850 EVO and the Crucial MX300.

    That said, many people are on a budget, so I present to you affordable SSDs that won't break the bank.

    For any of these SSDs, you should be able to buy the 480 GB for $100 or less and 960 GB for $200 or less.

    Toshiba OCZ Trion 150

    Mushkin Enhanced Reactor

    SanDisk Ultra II

    ADATA Premier SP550

    Because of the NAND shortage in the last few months, SSD prices have gone up, so you might need to shop around.
     
  2. Decimotox macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2013
    #2
    For $119.99 on Amazon, you can get the Crucial MX300 525 GB. :)
     
  3. tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #3
    Toshiba OCZ Trion 150 480 GB was only $90 very recently.
     
  4. Decimotox macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2013
    #4
    No doubt, it just always comes down to "you get what you pay for". I get being on a budget because I've definitely been there. Still there in a way. But $20 extra for slightly better performance and 45 more GB sounds good to me.

    http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Crucial-MX300-525GB-vs-OCZ-Trion-150-480GB/3643vs3620

    In the end, SSDs should just be standard for everyone. :D
     
  5. tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #5
    That's true, but the price differences get bigger as the capacity goes up.
     
  6. Oliverhay macrumors member

    Oliverhay

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2012
    Location:
    Auckland, New Zealand
    #6
    Crucial has multiple options. Just make sure you don't go for a faster drive then your motherboard can support.
    I'd recommend getting the fastest SSD you can support, just with less capacity. Its less ideal as you will have to use an external drive for your music/ games ect but that stuff doesn't benefit from an SSD anyway.

    The fastest SSD will keep your computer functional for an extra year compared to a cheaper SSD that won't be as amazing in a couple of years.
    I have an iMac with a top end 128GB crucial, and an external 1Tb hdd for my photos and music. Works very well for me :)
    For me, an SSD is the easiest and cheapest way to increase the life of your computer - unless you are an intense gamer or have a specific hard core use ect ect.
     
  7. tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #7
    I have to disagree.

    For example, would one be able to notice that Photoshop and Illustration loads faster?

    On the other hand, one would notice right away if the SSD is full.

    Obviously, some people perform tasks that would gain big benefit from having faster SSDs, but that's not the majority of the case.
     
  8. jerryk macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #8
    My 2 cents is SSD is not someplace where you want to cut corners. Get what works reliably for a long time. Since I consult I find it easy to put a value on my time. An hour of downtime (non-billable) to replace drive and restore from a backup is not work the risk to me.
     
  9. tubeexperience, Oct 18, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2016

    tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #9
    Budget SSDs don't mean that they are unreliable.

    We have come a long way since the early days of SSDs failing prematurely in masses.
     
  10. JTToft, Oct 19, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2016

    JTToft macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Location:
    Aarhus, Denmark
    #10
    I'm not sure any of those is really any cheaper than an MX300, at least not at current Amazon.com prices. The Mushkin is rather expensive even.

    It's been my opinion for a long time that there isn't enough money to be saved by moving from a good mid-range drive to a somewhat poor low-range drive to justify it. With the MX300 introduction this is even more true, and it doesn't look like it's going to change.

    Out of the four, I'd take SanDisk Ultra II no question. And I'm still not sure I have the confidence in the OCZ brand to ever purchase or recommend anything from them - Toshiba acquisition or not.

    I think the recommendations remain: MX300 for value for money; 850 EVO for high speed and quality; 850 PRO for the absolute best.
     
  11. tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #11
    The Toshiba OCZ Trion 150 960 GB is selling for $190 right now.

    Also, looking at the professional reviews, there is nothing OCZ about it except for the brand. It's a 100% Toshiba drive.

    As for the Mushkin Enhanced Reactor, it's an MLC drive and it's almost as fast as a Samsung 850 EVO (which is obviously a TLC drive).
     
  12. Fuchal macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    #12
    I've personally had no issues with the Sandisk. I also hear good things about the Mushkin.
     
  13. JTToft macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Location:
    Aarhus, Denmark
    #13
    - At 960 GB, Ultra II is $200 on Amazon. I'd take that over a $190 Trion 150. Both cheaper than MX300, of course. But I'd argue if you're looking at ~1 TB drives, your priority isn't really price anyway.
    At ~500 GB all three are very similar in price.

    There wasn't really anything OCZ about OCZ drives except for the brand before the post-bankruptcy acquisition, either. And they were still crap, and the company was sketchy. I'm not buying anything with their name on it.

    I was also recently informed that Toshiba, in the best OCZ fashion, also made a change and a technology switch in their Q300 drive without informing anyone. Based on specification comparisons, a switch from 15nm TLC to 19nm TLC if I recall - but who knows what else? Supposedly it makes the drive faster (it was already one of the slowest in existence), but they made the change so silently that no reviews exist for the supposedly new and improved version.

    I'm not convinced by either of them as a retail SSD brand.

    - Then I'd get an 850 EVO instead. There are no longevity concerns with the type of 3D TLC used in them, so it's not really a concern.
     
  14. Benjinator macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2016
    #14
    Which
    Which would you guys recommend for a SATA 2 machine? Planning on getting the EVO 850, but don't want to waste the money and performance on a bottlenecked system.
     
  15. tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #15
    One of the above.
     
  16. JTToft macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Location:
    Aarhus, Denmark
    #16
    - Crucial MX300.
     

Share This Page