Kingston 120GB V+200 SSD SATA-III - Read 535MB/s Write 480MB/s for £69.99 @ Ebuyer with code
Use Code Rooney
- SATA-III Technology
- Read 535MB/s Write 480MB/s
- 3 Year Manufacturer Warranty
Kingston’s SSDNow V+200 features a second-generation SATA-III SandForce processor for best-in-class sequential read/write speeds combined with asynchronous NAND for exceptional quality and performance at an affordable price. It’s the perfect balance of performance and affordability and easy to integrate into corporate asset refresh cycles.
Because data integrity is important, you need to make sure the SSD you choose takes data protection seriously. V+200 offers data integrity protection that features DuraClass Technology plus RAISE for advanced data reliability. It’s designed to negate the performance impact of software encryption, so you can regain the performance lost and increase your user experience.
Most business systems are SATA-II, but the V+200 is SATA-III and backwards compatible all the way to SATA-I. It therefore allows you the flexibility to future-proof your purchase.
V+200 comes with a three-year warranty, 24/7 technical support and legendary Kingston reliability.
Top Comments (1)
Both are the same size and only £8 difference in price £67.99 - £77.99, but I did read something about the Kingston being very good for use in an XP PC!
Also is it easy to swap over from HDD to SSD including operation system etc.
I've gone for the Kingston as I've had the Sata2 v+100 on my XP machine for about a year and very happy with it. It handles Garbage Collection automatically where Trim isn't available..
I have read that the Samsung comes with a software suite to do similar but the Kingston "just does it".
Both are good. Just my tuppence worth.
Samsung for me. Not sandforce, worth it for that alone.
The 830 does have inbuilt garbage collection btw.
http://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index/4863?cPage=2&all=False&sort=0&page=6&slug=the-samsung-ssd-830-review
Hi,
I read that review. It's pretty critical about the Garbage Collection performance of the Samsung, "These days things are a lot better but it's still a concern" etc. OK with Trim O/S, though.
I also contacted Samsung who said their 830 "wasn't ideal" for XP.
Plus, Kingston after-sales beats Samsung's hands down, should anything go wrong.
Anyway, it would be a dull world if we all had the same opinion. As I said, just my tuppence worth. And both are good drives.
The 830 still has it but yes it's only on idle (but it's still present) and yes XP doesn't suit SSDs because it has no TRIM support. I'd still stick with the 830 regardless because sandforce drives are flawed - as in they kill your data. I've seen this personally and that's way more important to me than being able to run well on XP. Hopefully most of us aren't using XP for SSDs at all :)
On Win 7 the 830 is a much better choice IMHO (appreciate your own may differ).
Just read this, and that's precisely what I was going to do - clone my XP installation onto an SSD. What are the issues?
In simple terms flash memory can't be written to again until it's first been erased. Think of the drive being made up of blocks - they start out empty and as you use it over time they're filled with data. When you delete a file these blocks are marked as empty but still contain the original data and must be emptied before they can be filled again. This is just due to how the flash memory works. With me? Well this means that there's a cost (time) in emptying a block before filling it again with new data (writing to it). So, when people talk about garbage collection their talking about the drives controller going around and emptying these filled (but marked deleted) blocks so that when you come to use them again they're already empty and you don't incure a time penalty. All drives do this thesedays without the OS knowing about it, and it's usually when they're idle (because then you don't notice). Modern OS' (like Windows 7) ALSO trigger garbage collection by sending what's called a TRIM command to the drive (telling it to clean up) - the addition of this basically means the drive will remain quicker more of the time and this is why it's the ideal. XP is so old it doesn't know about these things and this is why it's not *ideal* for SSDs. It doesn't mean you can't use it but in theory if you hammer any drive the performance can degrade over time more so than it would with Windows 7.
There's a lot more too this but really that's all you need to know - and for all intents and purposes for average use of an SSD all current gen drives are pretty equal and on Windows 7 more so (obviously). The biggest factor to me in buying an SSD is to not have one based on a sandforce controller (neither the M4 or the 830 are) because they are known to have a horrible bug that kills your data and or drive. Some will never see it, but plenty have and I'm one of them. It's really not fun.
All Comments (33)
Jump to unread Post a Commentheat!
Both are the same size and only £8 difference in price £67.99 - £77.99, but I did read something about the Kingston being very good for use in an XP PC!
Also is it easy to swap over from HDD to SSD including operation system etc.
Edited By: malch on Jun 20, 2012 12:54
Thanks.
Edited By: lnb1996 on Jun 20, 2012 14:38: .
Both are the same size and only £8 difference in price £67.99 - £77.99, but I did read something about the Kingston being very good for use in an XP PC!
Also is it easy to swap over from HDD to SSD including operation system etc.
I've gone for the Kingston as I've had the Sata2 v+100 on my XP machine for about a year and very happy with it. It handles Garbage Collection automatically where Trim isn't available..
I have read that the Samsung comes with a software suite to do similar but the Kingston "just does it".
Both are good. Just my tuppence worth.
"Use Code Rooney"
Top line of the post.
Try reading the OP.
Both are the same size and only £8 difference in price £67.99 - £77.99, but I did read something about the Kingston being very good for use in an XP PC!
Also is it easy to swap over from HDD to SSD including operation system etc.
I've gone for the Kingston as I've had the Sata2 v+100 on my XP machine for about a year and very happy with it. It handles Garbage Collection automatically where Trim isn't available..
I have read that the Samsung comes with a software suite to do similar but the Kingston "just does it".
Both are good. Just my tuppence worth.
Samsung for me. Not sandforce, worth it for that alone.
The 830 does have inbuilt garbage collection btw.
http://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index/4863?cPage=2&all=False&sort=0&page=6&slug=the-samsung-ssd-830-review
Edited By: dangel on Jun 20, 2012 15:29
I'm aware there are guides I just wanted to know do I need to purchase anything separately if I get this also is it fairly easy? I've changed my CPU and my GPU without alot of hassle but just wanted to know, thanks guys!
I was more concerned about swapping over the OS, software and data etc. than the physical connetcions and fixings, although I appreciate that it would be better to fix in position.
"Also is it easy to swap over from HDD to SSD including operation system etc."
Both are the same size and only £8 difference in price £67.99 - £77.99, but I did read something about the Kingston being very good for use in an XP PC!
Also is it easy to swap over from HDD to SSD including operation system etc.
I've gone for the Kingston as I've had the Sata2 v+100 on my XP machine for about a year and very happy with it. It handles Garbage Collection automatically where Trim isn't available..
I have read that the Samsung comes with a software suite to do similar but the Kingston "just does it".
Both are good. Just my tuppence worth.
Samsung for me. Not sandforce, worth it for that alone.
The 830 does have inbuilt garbage collection btw.
http://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index/4863?cPage=2&all=False&sort=0&page=6&slug=the-samsung-ssd-830-review
Hi,
I read that review. It's pretty critical about the Garbage Collection performance of the Samsung, "These days things are a lot better but it's still a concern" etc. OK with Trim O/S, though.
I also contacted Samsung who said their 830 "wasn't ideal" for XP.
Plus, Kingston after-sales beats Samsung's hands down, should anything go wrong.
Anyway, it would be a dull world if we all had the same opinion. As I said, just my tuppence worth. And both are good drives.
heat!
There's an indepth comparison of the two drives here -
http://www.techspot.com/review/530-kingston-240gb-ssd/
The conclusion is that neither drive is more reliable, but the HyperX is slightly faster (555mb/s read as opposed to 535mb/s).
That said, I bought one of these from ebuyer at this price the other week and do not regret it - although I would have gone for the Scan deal if I'd know it was coming up!
Both are the same size and only £8 difference in price £67.99 - £77.99, but I did read something about the Kingston being very good for use in an XP PC!
Also is it easy to swap over from HDD to SSD including operation system etc.
I've gone for the Kingston as I've had the Sata2 v+100 on my XP machine for about a year and very happy with it. It handles Garbage Collection automatically where Trim isn't available..
I have read that the Samsung comes with a software suite to do similar but the Kingston "just does it".
Both are good. Just my tuppence worth.
Samsung for me. Not sandforce, worth it for that alone.
The 830 does have inbuilt garbage collection btw.
http://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index/4863?cPage=2&all=False&sort=0&page=6&slug=the-samsung-ssd-830-review
Hi,
I read that review. It's pretty critical about the Garbage Collection performance of the Samsung, "These days things are a lot better but it's still a concern" etc. OK with Trim O/S, though.
I also contacted Samsung who said their 830 "wasn't ideal" for XP.
Plus, Kingston after-sales beats Samsung's hands down, should anything go wrong.
Anyway, it would be a dull world if we all had the same opinion. As I said, just my tuppence worth. And both are good drives.
The 830 still has it but yes it's only on idle (but it's still present) and yes XP doesn't suit SSDs because it has no TRIM support. I'd still stick with the 830 regardless because sandforce drives are flawed - as in they kill your data. I've seen this personally and that's way more important to me than being able to run well on XP. Hopefully most of us aren't using XP for SSDs at all :)
On Win 7 the 830 is a much better choice IMHO (appreciate your own may differ).
Edited By: dangel on Jun 20, 2012 17:13
Both are the same size and only £8 difference in price £67.99 - £77.99, but I did read something about the Kingston being very good for use in an XP PC!
Also is it easy to swap over from HDD to SSD including operation system etc.
I've gone for the Kingston as I've had the Sata2 v+100 on my XP machine for about a year and very happy with it. It handles Garbage Collection automatically where Trim isn't available..
I have read that the Samsung comes with a software suite to do similar but the Kingston "just does it".
Both are good. Just my tuppence worth.
Samsung for me. Not sandforce, worth it for that alone.
The 830 does have inbuilt garbage collection btw.
http://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index/4863?cPage=2&all=False&sort=0&page=6&slug=the-samsung-ssd-830-review
Hi,
I read that review. It's pretty critical about the Garbage Collection performance of the Samsung, "These days things are a lot better but it's still a concern" etc. OK with Trim O/S, though.
I also contacted Samsung who said their 830 "wasn't ideal" for XP.
Plus, Kingston after-sales beats Samsung's hands down, should anything go wrong.
Anyway, it would be a dull world if we all had the same opinion. As I said, just my tuppence worth. And both are good drives.
The 830 still has it but yes it's only on idle (but it's still present) and yes XP doesn't suit SSDs because it has no TRIM support. I'd still stick with the 830 regardless because sandforce drives are flawed - as in they kill your data. I've seen this personally and that's way more important to me than being able to run well on XP. Hopefully most of us aren't using XP for SSDs at all :)
On Win 7 the 830 is a much better choice IMHO (appreciate your own may differ).
Just read this, and that's precisely what I was going to do - clone my XP installation onto an SSD. What are the issues?