Kingston 96GB V+100 SSD - £102.82 Delivered @ Amazon - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
It's been 2 weeks since this deal was posted last, and since then the price has fallen a further £3.

Worth reposting I feel.

I bought one a week ago and have been very happy with it; I won't ever go back to traditional HDD.

The Kingston V+100 doesn't top the SSD benchmarks but at this price/GB it doesn't have to, as even middle-of-the-road SSDs are still much much faster than traditional HDDs.

The way I see it, it's better to have 96GB of 'stuff' load 400% faster, than it is to have 60GB of 'stuff' load 440% faster.

Stock fluctuates daily; at time of posting they're listing 16 in-stock.

:edit:

Ebuyer's price has risen, however Amazon are still selling @ £102.82 here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kingston-96GB-SATA2-2-5inch-Drive/dp/B004APRLTY/
Deal Tags:
More From Ebuyer:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
TehJumpingJawa Avatar
5y, 8m agoFound 5 years, 8 months ago
Options

All Comments

(117) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
banned 2 Likes #1
The way I see it, it's better to have 96GB of 'stuff' load 400% faster, than it is to have 60GB of 'stuff' load 440% faster. [i]

By your rationale it could be said these are very poor value compared to decent SATA drives.
1 Like #2
howardino
The way I see it, it's better to have 96GB of 'stuff' load 400% faster, than it is to have 60GB of 'stuff' load 440% faster. [i]

By your rationale it could be said these are very poor value compared to decent SATA drives.


Ho so?
The access/seek time of an SSD is more than 100x faster than even the fastest HDD.
banned#3
You were the one who said seek times weren't important and we all know in reality you're not going to enjoy anything approaching the theoretical differences.

Bottom line - these drives are still poor value for money.
#4
Way over rated, just a matter of time before the suites controlling the market realize that and reduce the price.
#5
I'd prefer a thread bump to a repost - but heat added as its still a bargain.

Usual SSD discussion with people not willing to realise how much faster they are in real world usage.
Its the best thing you can do to speed up your PC or laptop.
1 Like #6
I'd rather wait till 16,05 OCZ Agility 3 to come out, will see more interesting deals definitely. PS 99,98 from scan atm..
#7
howardino
You were the one who said seek times weren't important and we all know in reality you're not going to enjoy anything approaching the theoretical differences.


When did I say that?!

Seek times are the biggest difference between HDD and SSD, and the primary reason why they give such a big boost in perceived performance.

You have to own one to appreciate how much of a difference it makes, and once you do - you'll never want to go back. Honestly!
One of the best PC upgrades I've ever bought.
banned#8
mikerr
I'd prefer a thread bump to a repost - but heat added as its still a bargain.

Usual SSD discussion with people not willing to realise how much faster they are in real world usage.
Its the best thing you can do to speed up your PC or laptop.


so what 'real world usage' is so slow that ordinary folk would need one of these overpriced drives?

Will it speed up my Internet connection?

Will it speed up the rate at which I type my letters and emails?

Will it speed up the rate at which my films and music play?
#9
Got a budget Kingston SSD myself, 64gb gen1, brilliant upgrade would recommend if you reboot a lot or run large programs a lot. Much faster then a HD as OP said the seek times are the main thing!
1 Like #10
howardino
so what 'real world usage' is so slow that ordinary folk would need one of these overpriced drives?
It will transform your boot-up time. If that prompts people to shut down their machines when they're not being used for a time then that's a good thing. ATM quite a lot of people just leave them running, even when they're not being used, to save the wait of having to reboot.
1 Like #11
howardino
mikerr
I'd prefer a thread bump to a repost - but heat added as its still a bargain.

Usual SSD discussion with people not willing to realise how much faster they are in real world usage.
Its the best thing you can do to speed up your PC or laptop.



so what 'real world usage' is so slow that ordinary folk would need one of these overpriced drives?

Will it speed up my Internet connection?

Will it speed up the rate at which I type my letters and emails?

Will it speed up the rate at which my films and music play?


Internet speed is something different entirely... You pay additional costs for that, to a provider?

SSD is not a drug.

Why would you want something that made your films and music play faster? Unless you like listening to chipmunks on a constant basis.


Edited By: DarrylJohn on May 13, 2011 23:27
3 Likes #12
howardino
mikerr
I'd prefer a thread bump to a repost - but heat added as its still a bargain.

Usual SSD discussion with people not willing to realise how much faster they are in real world usage.
Its the best thing you can do to speed up your PC or laptop.



so what 'real world usage' is so slow that ordinary folk would need one of these overpriced drives?

Will it speed up my Internet connection?

Will it speed up the rate at which I type my letters and emails?

Will it speed up the rate at which my films and music play?


I think you are misunderstanding what we mean by the term 'real-world usage'.
We're talking about the differences between drives when being used in demanding real-world applications rather than synthetic benchmarks.

As to your examples:
1) Yes, it would make a difference - internet browsing uses temporary files that are stored on the harddrive. Having faster access to these will speed up page loading.
2) Yes, loading emails will be faster, as will searching through your emails.
3) No, movies & music are both sequential data types so benefit least from SSDs (though given the limited capacity of SSDs you wouldn't waste the space storing these media types on them anyway.).

Some of the most noticable differences are the least easily quantifiable; Windows itself performs disc I/O in a miriad of locations. Normally these will be noticed as a momentary pause. With SSDs these pauses simply vanish. (or, become so short as to be imperceivable to a human)

Then there are the obvious benefits of having the Windows swap file on an SSD.

I suggest you shouldn't rubbish SSDs until you've owned one, and appreciated the difference for yourself.
1 Like #13
All this discussion on the merits of SSDs is getting off point.....

Nowhere else will you find a good performance SSD at very nearly £1/GB.
Rate the deal, not the product.
#14
howardino
The way I see it, it's better to have 96GB of 'stuff' load 400% faster, than it is to have 60GB of 'stuff' load 440% faster.
[i]By your rationale it could be said these are very poor value compared to decent SATA drives.

I think you’ve either completely missed the point being made or are wilfully ignoring it.
The OP is saying that there are slightly faster drives at a similar price point but they only have 60GB capacity so it makes sense to get a slightly slower drive with ~50% more capacity. This is only true if you have enough data that warrants being on an SSD of course which certainly isn’t a given.
Whereas the fastest SATA desktop drive doesn’t come close to this SSD for real world performance; in the areas where they excel.

I have a decent SSD and love it but I still don’t see them as essential purchases. If I had a smaller budget for my IT equipment I’d rather do without an SSD than lose my IPS TFT.
My PC is a business tool so I reclaim the VAT and offset the cost against tax so it works out a lot cheaper for me.
From a cost and time analysis perspective it’s easy to justify it though. If it only saves me 1 minute per week, over the course of a year that’s nearly an hour so since I earn over £50 an hour that pays for the drive.
But subjectively it’s worth a lot more than that as the response time and snappiness is wonderful. Building a new system with an SSD is a joy as you can save a lot of time especially if you have a lot of large applications to install.
So they are a luxury but a practical one from my experience.
#15
so what 'real world usage' is so slow that ordinary folk would need one of these overpriced drives?

Will it speed up my Internet connection?

Will it speed up the rate at which I type my letters and emails?

Will it speed up the rate at which my films and music play?


When you last upgraded your computer, how much did the CPU cost? Did that improve the speed at which you typed letters and emails over the previous one you had? Or speed up the rate at which yours films and music played? Or your internet connection?

In addition to Agharta's comments, its important to reflect on how frequently you have upgraded your PC\laptop in the last ten years, and how modest the upgrades have been each time. If you upgrade your PC every two years, you are likely to see perhaps a doubling in memory, a ~50% increase in c;lock speed (or more recently, the same clock speed but an equivalent increase in core count); for many tasks, an SSD will make a PC feel far more responsive and fast than the equivalently priced upgrade in CPU capacity or memory. They are almost certainly as significant upgrade as the move to dual-core CPUs was over single-core models.

tarryboy
Way over rated, just a matter of time before the suites controlling the market realize that and reduce the price.


Not overrated at all. An Intel CPU has 250 square millimeters of 32nm silicon with a couple of billion transistors, that costs several hundred pounds. A cutting edge SSD has hundreds of billions of transistors and consumes significantly more die on a newer process; the price you pay is the price needed for the fabs to cover their costs and enable them to build the next generations, they aren't profiteering...

As for the actual deal, its a good price for the actual model but I'm not voting hot on the grounds that 60GB Sandforce-based drives are available for ~£20 less. I appreciate 60GB is on the small side and the extra capacity is very useful, but it is a trade-off and this is at best an average drive as current gen SSDs go,
banned#16
DarrylJohn
howardino
mikerr
I'd prefer a thread bump to a repost - but heat added as its still a bargain.

Usual SSD discussion with people not willing to realise how much faster they are in real world usage.
Its the best thing you can do to speed up your PC or laptop.


so what 'real world usage' is so slow that ordinary folk would need one of these overpriced drives?

Will it speed up my Internet connection?

Will it speed up the rate at which I type my letters and emails?

Will it speed up the rate at which my films and music play?

Internet speed is something different entirely... You pay additional costs for that, to a provider?

SSD is not a drug.

Why would you want something that made your films and music play faster? Unless you like listening to chipmunks on a constant basis.



thank you, that's exactly what I'm saying. In the real world, the one most of us live in, the geeks excluded, then these hard drives are not going to make a noticeable difference to our normal everyday experience, they simply cannot speed up the most common reasons for speed constraint.

Shorter boot times may appeal but otherwise they're not for everyday folk.....not yet anyway.
#17
howardino
In the real world then these hard drives are not going to make a noticeable difference to our normal everyday experience, they simply cannot speed up the most common reasons for speed constraint.

Have you looked at load times for games etc which are often noticeably slow? SSDs can significantly improve that.

howardino
Shorter boot times may appeal but otherwise they're not for everyday folk.....not yet anyway.

If they are as unappealing as you seem to be suggesting then why would they ever appeal to ‘everyday folk’?

Shorter Boot time is an overplayed advantage IMO except for when building a new system when you have to reboot multiple times.
Just use standby as that way you don’t have to open all your applications when you turn it back on. I have an SSD but still use standby as it saves loads of time.
The difference in power consumption between off and standby with a modern power supply is 1W at most so unless you unplug your PC from the socket the saving is minuscule. In standby my PC consumes 3W so not a big saving even if you do unplug it.

You seem biased against SSDs so I don’t know why you bother posting on this thread. It’s like having a Jehohav’s Witness at the door going on about SATA hard drives. oO
#18

The way I see it, it's better to have 96GB of 'stuff' load 400% faster, than it is to have 60GB of 'stuff' load 440% faster.


Interesting statement: a ~50% boost to capacity is worth a ~10% trade-off in speed. Quick calculation suggests that at ~100% performance (by which I presume you were meaning a traditional mechanical drive), you would want a capacity of ~19TB (ouch!).

I reckon for the price of this drive, you might just be able to get 2 x 2TB drives - so only 15TB short :). Therefore, by your rationale, this drive *is* good value against a mechanical drive (assuming it really is 400% quicker...) ;)

I need to get out more...
#19
The problem with any ssd atm is mlc flash
as they are shrinking the die yields are going through the floor
alot of the new chips only have 3000 writes
i wouldnt touch anything for long term use apart from slc
#20
DarrylJohn
howardino
mikerr
I'd prefer a thread bump to a repost - but heat added as its still a bargain.

Usual SSD discussion with people not willing to realise how much faster they are in real world usage.
Its the best thing you can do to speed up your PC or laptop.


so what 'real world usage' is so slow that ordinary folk would need one of these overpriced drives?

Will it speed up my Internet connection?

Will it speed up the rate at which I type my letters and emails?

Will it speed up the rate at which my films and music play?

Internet speed is something different entirely... You pay additional costs for that, to a provider?

SSD is not a drug.

Why would you want something that made your films and music play faster? Unless you like listening to chipmunks on a constant basis.


Theres always one clever head on every thread with a smart a** remark
1 Like #21
Well, I think you should give seagate momentus xt hybrid 500GB a try, bought two on Pixmania for £76 each(best price I can find, don't know why 500GB is cheaper than 320GB, weird.... ), they are wonderful, I even use it in my desktop, can't believe how fast it is, just a bit of 4gb SSD in it, totally kicks ass my old 7200rpm hard drive. I think it's good value for money for both speed and storage, also good review about it.
#22
Good price, SSDs are good but it's not an essential item to add.
1 Like #23
The most worthwhile upgrade I've made to my pc in the last four years. Makes you realise just how much mechanical drives bottleneck a modern computer. I love the immediacy of them, for want of a better word.

Will an SSD change your life? No. Will it make a tangible difference to the day to day operation of your pc? Yes.
#24
These are great for some situations I suppose, but saving a few seconds loadup time seems crazy to me. ComputerActive did a comparison between an SSD and HDD. The SDD loaded Windows 7 in 26.8 seconds, while the HDD loaded in 32.2 seconds - a saving of a mind-boggling 5.4 seconds (16% faster)! In another test with a high performance computer the difference was 25 seconds. Even so, I'd hardly call this lightening speed :) The SDDs need to be better and faster before I'd be interested.
#25
I would have long bought one, if there wasn't a big problem: you need more space, and therefore you need a second drive. Drive D:. But Windows 7 wants to put a lot of things on Drive C:, with no (documented) way to move them. One of these is the offline share cache - which tends to be quite large in my case, and reasonably pointless on an SSD.

What we really need are small SSDs acting as a cache for large hard disks. I wonder why it is taking so long to get there - it can't be that complicated.

PS: does the limited warranty cover if the drive breaks (as in wears out)? You would assume it should, but I hate small print.

Edited By: MrPuddington on May 14, 2011 09:19: Warranty question
#26
Pretty decent tbh as i've been waiting for SSD's to come down to gig vs £ ratio and this is pretty much near.

So it's getting there :)

HOT
#27
I bought one a few days ago, and makes a massive difference in boot up time and game load times.
#28
excellent deal!, i'm personally waiting for the ocz vertex 2 120gb to drop in price.
#29
MrPuddington
I would have long bought one, if there wasn't a big problem: you need more space, and therefore you need a second drive. Drive D:. But Windows 7 wants to put a lot of things on Drive C:, with no (documented) way to move them. One of these is the offline share cache - which tends to be quite large in my case, and reasonably pointless on an SSD.

What we really need are small SSDs acting as a cache for large hard disks. I wonder why it is taking so long to get there - it can't be that complicated.

PS: does the limited warranty cover if the drive breaks (as in wears out)? You would assume it should, but I hate small print.


Then Post 21 is for you
#30
[/quote]

Theres always one clever head on every thread with a smart a** remark[/quote]

And it clearly isn't you this time! : )
#31
I always thought SSDs were a waste of money. Bought an OCZ Vertex 2 60Gb for my system. Boot up time is massively faster not just a little bit faster. I cloned my current Windows on to my Samsung Spinpoint F3 1Tb which are fast for SSD firmware updating and when I boot up with that, man it's slow.

Ok once everything is loaded you won't see any different as you are using RAM not hard drive space but applications run much faster, even installing becomes less of a chore.

If you are on a tight budget then SSD aren't for you but if you want a system running at it's best then SSD for system and apps is a major improvement. Personally i'd go for a smaller faster SSD, 60Gb is plenty. Just use a decent SATA hard drive for game installs and data.
#32
Make sure you tweak windows and bios settings to improve SSD performance too. Plus update to the latest SSD firmware.
#33
MrPuddington
I would have long bought one, if there wasn't a big problem: you need more space, and therefore you need a second drive. Drive D:. But Windows 7 wants to put a lot of things on Drive C:, with no (documented) way to move them. One of these is the offline share cache - which tends to be quite large in my case, and reasonably pointless on an SSD.

What we really need are small SSDs acting as a cache for large hard disks. I wonder why it is taking so long to get there - it can't be that complicated.

PS: does the limited warranty cover if the drive breaks (as in wears out)? You would assume it should, but I hate small print.



As above, the momentus XT hybrid is for you (been around for years in one form or another).

You can move the offline folders cache - two ways: simplest is to move the csc folder to another drive and then point the empty folder at the new location (check mklink mklink /J C:\Windows\CSC "D:\Offline Folders Cache") remembering to disable before and enable afterwards. Second involves registry keys to definitively move the location that offline files uses.
1 Like #34
Predikuesi
These are great for some situations I suppose, but saving a few seconds loadup time seems crazy to me. ComputerActive did a comparison between an SSD and HDD. The SDD loaded Windows 7 in 26.8 seconds, while the HDD loaded in 32.2 seconds - a saving of a mind-boggling 5.4 seconds (16% faster)! In another test with a high performance computer the difference was 25 seconds. Even so, I'd hardly call this lightening speed :) The SDDs need to be better and faster before I'd be interested.


Which review is this? Most of the reviews on ComputerActive seem fundamentally flawed; for instance, in one, the clone the OS from a HDD to a SSD, which is rarely recommended as it can force the SSD into using incorrect block alignment which severly punishes its speed. It also sounds like a very poor SSD they are reviewing; a Sandforce 1xxx or 2xxx drive has RW speeds over upwards of 250MB/s and IOPS that are over 100 times greater than a typical HDD, this should make a much larger difference to boot times. Also, if they are testing on Win.7, the caching of boot files which occurs over time makes a considerable difference.

Besides, the boot times are only a very minor aspect of what makes an SSD make a system more responsive; small DLLs, driver files, image caches etc are loaded *much* faster, this makes general explorer navigation, task switching and day-to-day use a lot smoother...
#35
Predikuesi
These are great for some situations I suppose, but saving a few seconds loadup time seems crazy to me. ComputerActive did a comparison between an SSD and HDD. The SDD loaded Windows 7 in 26.8 seconds, while the HDD loaded in 32.2 seconds - a saving of a mind-boggling 5.4 seconds (16% faster)! In another test with a high performance computer the difference was 25 seconds. Even so, I'd hardly call this lightening speed :) The SDDs need to be better and faster before I'd be interested.

Anything that talks about loading windiz *faster* needs to be steered well clear of!

Oh how I laughed when you spoke of a 30 second boot up time - I mean, computers are multiples better than they were a few years ago, how Microsoft manage to still take just as long to boot something which is total junk in the first place gives me reason to contemplate whether Mac users are all that bad!

PS in reply to the post about leaving PC's on - I would still leave mine on even if it booted super quick. I'm actually that lazy.
#36
MrPuddington
I would have long bought one, if there wasn't a big problem: you need more space, and therefore you need a second drive. Drive D:. But Windows 7 wants to put a lot of things on Drive C:, with no (documented) way to move them. One of these is the offline share cache - which tends to be quite large in my case, and reasonably pointless on an SSD.

What we really need are small SSDs acting as a cache for large hard disks. I wonder why it is taking so long to get there - it can't be that complicated.

PS: does the limited warranty cover if the drive breaks (as in wears out)? You would assume it should, but I hate small print.


Intel's 20Gb Larson creek SSD was designed with this in mind and works with the new Z68 chipset.

On the debate of if a SSD will be worth your money then if you boot your computer and go make a coffee you only use the internet and look at your emails and have a average speed (2mb) internet connection then the benefits will be small. If you use intensive applications or load and save multiple files or play games then you will get more benefit from an SSD.
#37
MrPuddington
What we really need are small SSDs acting as a cache for large hard disks. I wonder why it is taking so long to get there - it can't be that complicated.

This is exactly what the Seagate momentus XT is; a 500GB HDD with 4GB SSD cache
http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/seagate-momentus-xt-2-5-500gb-ssd-hdd-hybrid-79-99-delivered-ebuyer/935750

However it may be slightly faster than normal HDDs, it still isn't anywhere near as fast as a dedicated SSD


Edited By: mikerr on May 14, 2011 11:20
#38
OCZ Vertex 2e 60Gb is what i'm using, I recommend this.

Link here

Only £92.99 at ebuyer.com.
#39
I've just spent £1100 on a gaming system from YOYO Tech, London got a SSD put inside 60GB was £95. It helps load software a hell lot faster. I can load windows 7 on my system in 25seconds. As for installing stuff, multitasking, SSD is efficient. I use 2tb standard hdd which I'm going to partition for media / documents etc because you wouldn't need to run them fast.
3 Likes #40
Anyone who doesn't re-mortgage their house to buy a 200Gb SSD is clearly insane. Do you know how much of a difference these things make to your personal computer? Since I bought mine I saved 1.2 minutes in boot time. Yes. My PC boots up before I press the power button. But wait there's more. My games load quicker too.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!