Warm: A-DATA S599 AS599S-64GM-C Sandforce SSD 64gb 50k iops $112 FS

I actually saw this before you posted it, and they kept going out of stock so I finally had a chance to jump on it today.

I'm a little weary of A-Data products due to the bad customer reviews I've read on their SD cards, but from what I've seen in SSD reviews from other sites this looks solid. It's just a sandforce 1222 controller and intel flash chips soldered to a PCB. It would be hard to screw up.

I'll let you know how it works out, but at $1.75 per gig its a better deal per gb than the OCZ 90gb Vertex 2 even after the OCZ rebate IMO.
 
Man I want another ssd as mine is getting full, but I'm not sure if I should wait till christmas time for a better deal or the newer drives.
 
I had this in my cart the other day and it went out of stock while I was waffling. Thanks for bumping it back up.

I just got ordered it. I sure hope this SSD lives up to the general ssd hype. I need a gpu upgrade, and this just sapped 112 out of the kitty.
 
I wouldn't consider that an accurate comparison, as those numbers and specs are often wrong...just like what you read in the comments of many products.
 
Just copied/pasted from site.


Kingston
Sequential access- read up to 200MB/s
Sequential Access - Write up to 110MB/s


Adata

Sequential Access- read up to 280MB/s
Sequential Access - Write up to 270MB/s
 
That's a great starting point, but I've often encountered incorrect information in product descriptions on various vendor sites.

Besides, the pure numbers don't really tell me what controller is better, which drives last longer, which support TRIM, etc.
 
DeaconFrost said:
That's a great starting point, but I've often encountered incorrect information in product descriptions on various vendor sites.

Besides, the pure numbers don't really tell me what controller is better, which drives last longer, which support TRIM, etc.
Click to expand...

The Adata is much faster and the Newegg stats are fairly correct. Neither might meet those exact specs, but the ratio of performance between the drives will be the same on any given system, if that makes sense. It's anybody's guess as to which is more reliable. Both support TRIM. The Adata is worth the extra $12.
 
to be honest i just threw that in there to play devil's advocate. a lot of times we get all crazy pumped about posted deals and go checkout before thinking twice or checking comparable product lines. Just food for thought, that's all.
 
Well, I liked what I read on some review sites, so I'm in for one. I have several A-Data SD cards, including a 16 GB in my Nikon D40, and they have worked out very well for us.
 
in your opinion guys (i made a poll in the hd section)....

would you buy this for 112 or should i buy my friends bnib 64gb onyx drive for 60?
 
spressa112 said:
in your opinion guys (i made a poll in the hd section)....

would you buy this for 112 or should i buy my friends bnib 64gb onyx drive for 60?
Click to expand...

Do you care about speed? because the onyx drive is shit slow last generation type tech

* Read: Up to 135 MB/s
* Write: Up to 70 MB/s

However at less than a buck a gig, could be worthy it. Its all a matter of how much more you want to spend, you're not going to see 280/270 read/write speeds on a SSD for less than $1/GB anytime soon.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Do you care about speed? because the onyx drive is shit slow last generation type tech

* Read: Up to 135 MB/s
* Write: Up to 70 MB/s

However at less than a buck a gig, could be worthy it. Its all a matter of how much more you want to spend, you're not going to see 280/270 read/write speeds on a SSD for less than $1/GB anytime soon.
Click to expand...

i already have a vertex 2..... but i'd like another drive for another pc.......
 
I doubt you'd really be able to tell a huge difference between and Onyx and a short-stroked Samsung F3 1gb. Although the Onyx would be great for a netbook or low-end laptop where a Sandforce would be wasted since the CPU and controller would be weak anyway.
 
Arcygenical said:
Sandforce >>> Kingston.

You made a good choice HRE.
Click to expand...
Not always sandforce is great at benchmarks, real file transfers are very different.

ReconSniper said:
Just copied/pasted from site.


Kingston
Sequential access- read up to 200MB/s
Sequential Access - Write up to 110MB/s


Adata

Sequential Access- read up to 280MB/s
Sequential Access - Write up to 270MB/s
Click to expand...

I own the kingston drive and it will get these numbers in real file transfers. I owned a ocz vertex le which is also a sandforce drive that has similar speeds to the adata. My kingston drive ended up being faster in everything except random file read and writes. How the adata fares I don't know but I imagine it would be similar to the ocz vertex I owned. Great for benchmarks not all that great in real file transfers.

ordovician said:
The Adata is much faster and the Newegg stats are fairly correct. Neither might meet those exact specs, but the ratio of performance between the drives will be the same on any given system, if that makes sense. It's anybody's guess as to which is more reliable. Both support TRIM. The Adata is worth the extra $12.
Click to expand...

I think the extra $12 is worth it but don't expect the speed out of the adata that is listed.
 
Hmmm...my benchmarked speeds are much lower than expected.

ssd01.jpg
 
I'm getting >220MB/s average. There are a couple of sharper dips in the graph than I was getting with my Kingston SSDNOW V 40GB (the minimum went all the way down to 68GB/s in one bit), but the speeds are almost universally a good 60MB/s faster.

One rather ridiculous bit with this drive is that it's NOT a 64GB drive. It's 60GB, and the formatted size is 55GB. You can even see it in the screenshot posted by DeaconFrost, in the dropdown box just under the File menu.

Even though the label *right on the drive* is flat-out lying to me, I'm still pretty happy with the price/performance/capacity balance here.
 
Finger said:
I'm getting >220MB/s average. There are a couple of sharper dips in the graph than I was getting with my Kingston SSDNOW V 40GB (the minimum went all the way down to 68GB/s in one bit), but the speeds are almost universally a good 60MB/s faster.

One rather ridiculous bit with this drive is that it's NOT a 64GB drive. It's 60GB, and the formatted size is 55GB. You can even see it in the screenshot posted by DeaconFrost, in the dropdown box just under the File menu.

Even though the label *right on the drive* is flat-out lying to me, I'm still pretty happy with the price/performance/capacity balance here.
Click to expand...

I don't see that in the screen shot, i see 64gb formatted to 60gb. Maybe I am missing it?
 
My 1.5TB drive shows up in that same space as "1500gB". As in, that's the unformatted size of the drive, and so that's the unformatted size of this SSD (it's 55.90GB formatted according to what I see in Disk Management in Win7).
 
I'll post a new screenshot. Turns out, my partition wasn't aligned, despite the fact it was a new drive, right out of the box...and various sources telling me Windows 7 will handle that during the initial install. AS SSD utility shows me at 188 MB/s. I'll post a full screenshot soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top