I have an OCZ 256GB Vertex 4 in my system now for Win 7, FSX, add-ons, and other commonly used apps. currently I have about 2/3 free space left and have not yet installed any add-ons. Also since my add-on collection is not yet complete and I would like to try a few other sims I'm thinking that even my 256GB drive will not be large enough to store everything. I need to make a trip to Micro Center again soon to return some parts that I've already replaced, so I have enough in returns with my current SSD that I could upgrade to a 512GB SSD for very little cost. Micro Center has two models of 512GB SSD on hand, the Samsung 830 and the larger version of the same drive I have now.

 

I was wondering if anyone has experience with either of these drives and which you would recommend. the drive I have now is very fast, and gets even faster with the new firmware update (which I was going to perform today before changing my mind and deciding to get a larger drive) but the 830 seems to perform even better in most reviews despite having lower specs on paper.

 

Thamks in advance!

ADATA is great. Also, the Corsair SSDs are good too.

The two choices are Samsung 830 512GB and OCZ Vertex 4 512GB, thanks.

The two choices are Samsung 830 512GB and OCZ Vertex 4 512GB, thanks.

 

I have heard great things about OCZ drives.

 

Also, in my first post, I was in a hurry to post it before I left for lunch. I didn't have much time to read the initial post so I assumed that you were asking for a good SSD.

Note Carefully:

 

-- Even the "slowest" SSD today is almost 12 times faster than a WD 15,000rpm. Unfortunately for FSX, any SSD means little to nothing. FSX cares about the processor more than anyhting else. The only difference you will notice with an SDD drive is a few seconds (or some seconds), faster of load times. That's all FSX will give you. So, honestly you can either get the slowest or the fastest SSD and FSX is will NOT impressed one bit.

I have experienced very bad things with OCZ SSD´s !

Ok, it was the older V2 with Sandforce, the new ones with Indilinx controllers are beasts!

 

http://www.pcmag.com...,2402564,00.asp

 

@Johnny767: I prefer max. 1 min. loadtime, and NOT 7-8 min. which is the norm with a HDD if you have a "fully stuffed FSX".

I have heard great things about OCZ drives.

 

Also, in my first post, I was in a hurry to post it before I left for lunch. I didn't have much time to read the initial post so I assumed that you were asking for a good SSD.

 

I have too, and also experienced it with this drive and a Vertex 3 in a customer's system.

 

Note Carefully:

 

-- Even the "slowest" SSD today is almost 12 times faster than a WD 15,000rpm. Unfortunately for FSX, any SSD means little to nothing. FSX cares about the processor more than anyhting else. The only difference you will notice with an SDD drive is a few seconds (or some seconds), faster of load times. That's all FSX will give you. So, honestly you can either get the slowest or the fastest SSD and FSX is will NOT impressed one bit.

 

I couldn't disagree more. FSX loads up so fast on an SSD, they're not even in the same league.

 

I have experienced very bad things with OCZ SSD´s !

Ok, it was the older V2 with Sandforce, the new ones with Indilinx controllers are beasts!

 

http://www.pcmag.com...,2402564,00.asp

 

@Johnny767: I prefer max. 1 min. loadtime, and NOT 7-8 min. which is the norm with a HDD if you have a "fully stuffed FSX".

 

The newer drives are nice, I just see an opportunity to perhaps get a bit more speed and reliability with the Samsung drive and was wondering if anyone here had tried one out yet. I may just swap out my Vertex 4 256 for the 512 model, it is $100 less than the Samsung.

I recently made the move to Patriot Pyro SE's from OCZ and have not had any issues whatsoever.

 

We had a few OCZ's suddenly fail in the field. Latest Gen Sand's seem to be better.

I don't trust Sandforce controllers, nor do I like their reliance on compression technology (and compressable data) to achieve peak performance results. I am now contemplating adding another 256GB in RAID 0 for additional performance and storage. Decision will be made in the next few hours so I'll let you guys know. Thanks for all the feedback.

I've heard bad things about RAID0 and SSD's... can't find the reference at the moment...

I've heard bad things about RAID0 and SSD's... can't find the reference at the moment...

 

Now that you mention it they tend not to feature TRIM support however the latest Intel RST drivers do in fact support this feature. Not sure any other issues exist beyond the normal RAID 0 problems.

 

hmm, on second thought, as much as I'd like to have the utmost speed, a single SSD is already so fast that I'm not going to notice a difference in anything so I think I'll just go back to a single larger drive.

Now that you mention it they tend not to feature TRIM support however the latest Intel RST drivers do in fact support this feature. Not sure any other issues exist beyond the normal RAID 0 problems.

 

hmm, on second thought, as much as I'd like to have the utmost speed, a single SSD is already so fast that I'm not going to notice a difference in anything so I think I'll just go back to a single larger drive.

 

There's no trim in SRT drivers for RAID yet. It's planned for v11

There's no trim in SRT drivers for RAID yet. It's planned for v11

 

Ah, I see. Guess I'll skip it then. Was excited for a minute there but then the drawbacks started tapping me on the shoulder.

Looking forward to reading your results. I would think based on various comments so far either is a good choice. Like others, I have had problems of random BSOD on my 128G vertex 3. I don't have the latest firmware installed as it's also my boot drive and seems a little convoluted to backup, run the linux boot disk, secure erase, flash the new firmware, and restore. Since the 128g is full anyway was thinking of just getting a second SSD.

 

For me, having Win 7 and FSX on SSD I can't go back to waiting for startup.

 

scott s.

.

I believe OCZ official firmware updates are non-destructive, it's just the release candidates that are destructive.