First thing i wanna clarify that im using a SATA 2 motherboard
i dont know which one of these to choose the samsung is a little bit more expensive and ill have to get it from amazon becuase there is no local store that sells it and the kingston in the local stores is for about 120$
i just want to make the system a little bit snappier and load battlefield 4 maps faster (they usually take about 5 mins)
thoughts everyone ?
Whichever is cheaper. I think you'll be bottlenecked by your SATA controller, so you won't really notice a huge performance difference between the SSD's, especially if you're loading large maps.
i think both of them will end up for me with the same price but to get the samsung ill have to deal with amazon and shipping and fees
whereas in a local store i can just buy it and exchange it easily so its the jump from the Kingston to the samsung really worth it ?
Nope. Historically, Kingston has had some questionable entry-level SSD's, but the V300 has had high praise in terms of value with very little distinguishing it from the highly regarded HyperX 3K (which Logan has endorsed numerous times). I've used it (60 and 120GB capactities) in two builds so far without issue. If anything, I would avoid the 840 EVO, which I also haven't had problems with though I've only had one build with it. While the performance is very impressive, it's wasted on SATA II and the 3bit per cell MLC, or TLC, hasn't had it's long-term effects proven. It is cheaper, and offers higher capacity, but the more bits you cram in per cell, the less reliable it becomes due to higher the read errors. There is technology to correct the errors, so the chances of non-recoverable errors are still very slim, but I still have my doubts on reliability in the long term. There are also counter-measures to the other down-falls of TLC (such as Turbo write to counter-act slow write speeds by emulating a portion as SLC), and thus far has been praised so far with no ill effects in sight. Again, I express my skepticism of TLC.
As I've said before, you are limited by the SATA interface, so there shouldn't be much of a performance difference between the SSD's in your system. The slowest of two in terms of reads is the V300, which claims random 4k read speeds of 85,000 IOPS, which is ~330MB/s; SATA II seems to have a ceiling of about 285MB/s, so the V300 is still faster than your SATA connection. It's down to price (same), warranty (3 years, same), and having a local store has its advantages. It seems the V300 has the slight advantage by virtue of convenience.
As a side note, if you care about writes, the V300 has the faster write speeds at 55,000 IOPS random write, or ~215MB/s. The EVO is significantly slower at random writes at 35,000 IOPS, or ~135MB/s.
well i dont care much about write speed
also im pretty sure im gonna get a SATA3 MOBO in july but still all i want is to load things faster and to make the system snappier if the kingston can offer that without a big gap between it and the samsung then im gonna get it
The reason why Kingston has benchmark results similar to the EVO is the fact that the Sandforce controller compresses the data. If you are dealing with incompressible data (like music files, or anything encrypted), the performance difference is very noticeable.
Here, benchmarks done by anandtech with both compressible and uncompressible data http://www.anandtech.com/show/6733/kingston-ssdnow-v300-review/2
Performance-wise the EVO is superior, no matter how you look at it.
As for the reliability of the EVO, anandtech was also doing a test to see how many GB you can write to different SSDs before the spare area is exhausted. I cannot find a link to this test right now, you can search for it on the anandtech site.
I can, however, give you this quote from anandtech:
"Despite having a far more limited lifespan compared to its 2bpc MLC brethren, the TLC NAND Samsung used in its 840 turned out to be quite reliable. Even our own aggressive estimates pegged typical client write endurance on the 840 at more than 11 years for the 128GB model."
Check out their review, it also has a page dedicated to endurance: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7173/samsung-ssd-840-evo-review-120gb-250gb-500gb-750gb-1tb-models-tested
EDIT: Here, the endurance aspect of the drives caught my attention and found this endurance test for the Kingston SSD: http://ssdendurancetest.com/ssd-endurance-test-report/Kingston-SSDNow-V300-60. The author said that the Kingston was the first SSD to actually fail during their tests.
And here is the EVO test: http://ssdendurancetest.com/ssd-endurance-test-report/Samsung-840-EVO-120. The EVO test is ongoing, and was being performed while the Kingston failed.
Is this an isolated accident? Are the authors not to be trusted? You be the judge of that.
Dude you really scared me from that SSD no one complained about it in amazon or newegg
the problem is that if i buy the evo it will cost me about 143$
while the Kingston will cost me 104$ and with that 40$ diffrence + some extra money i can upgrade my motherboard to a SATA 3 one but you really scared me off the SSD
all im gonna do with it is just put the windows and battlefield 4 and maybe make it an export forlder for Dxtory to make use of the fast writing speeds
Wow, wow, there's no need to panic. If you read the article you will notice that they say that the workloads they have subjected the SSD to are not your usual desktop workloads. Furthermore, this only happen with one SSD, it can be an isolated incident. I was posting it more to show that the EVO can be just as reliable as the Kingston, not to show that the Kingston is crap.
People say in terms of reliabilty samsung comes first followed by Kingston then OCZ
so yea i guess ill just go for it and hopefully it wont die for about 2-3 years of moderate use
It won't, otherwise the internet would be flooded with people complaining about SSD reliability.