Maplin 512GB Portable SSD + FREE £10 voucher + more SSD/HDD deals in description @ Maplin C&C
532°

Maplin 512GB Portable SSD + FREE £10 voucher + more SSD/HDD deals in description @ Maplin C&C

31
Found 22nd Nov
Plus 5% Quidco, 10% OFF instore for NUS extra card holders.

Voucher offer valid 15/11/17-30/11/17. Voucher to use on your next purchase between 01/12/17-24/12/17.

256GB for £89.99 + £10 voucher
maplin.co.uk/p/m…8uj

128GB for £44.99 + £5 voucher
maplin.co.uk/p/m…7lw

4TB WD NAS for £129.99 + £10 voucher
maplin.co.uk/p/w…9lx

Samsung T3 250GB USB 3.1 External Portable SSD for £104.99 + £10 voucher
maplin.co.uk/p/s…0uu

Samsung T1 500GB Portable SSD for £119.99 + £10 voucher
maplin.co.uk/p/s…9tx

Seagate USB 3.0 4TB Portable Backup Plus for £104.99 plus £10 voucher
maplin.co.uk/p/s…5ua

Top comments

Good deal, but write speed only 100 MB/s & that's ridiculous, my USB stick write speed is 150MB/s...
31 Comments

The link goes to a 256gb

Link is to 256GB deal, not 512, which is at: maplin.co.uk/p/m…9uj
Edited by: "guybythesea" 22nd Nov

Original Poster

guybythesea36 s ago

Link is to 256GB deal, not 512?



Thanks, corrected.

Good deal, but write speed only 100 MB/s & that's ridiculous, my USB stick write speed is 150MB/s...

Do you know if you can open up and take out the ssd?

Why would you even think about it???
Pay a bit extra for a fast 512GB SSD and forget about this one

Haha 100MB write speed and they call it ssd? What a rip off! Don't even bother buying maplin branded items

anyone try'd to cannibalize one of this maplin hdd's for ssd inside? what kind of ssd drive is inside of it? at £99 this is very tempting but it would be even better if we could takeout the drive and use it as internal ssd

nw104hh7 h, 40 m ago

Why would you even think about it???Pay a bit extra for a fast 512GB SSD …Why would you even think about it???Pay a bit extra for a fast 512GB SSD and forget about this one

It's cheaper than a bare SSD, so totally reasonable to think about it. Just also think about the transfer speeds.
Edited by: "werewhelk" 23rd Nov

100MB speed is like an external HDD. What capacity of a HDD can we buy at this price?

For £15 more you can have a decent Crucial SSD with write speed around 500 MB/s...

nw104hh1 h, 23 m ago

For £15 more you can have a decent Crucial SSD with write speed around 500 …For £15 more you can have a decent Crucial SSD with write speed around 500 MB/s...


Link please ?

nw104hh21 m ago

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Crucial-MX300-525GB-Internal-Solid/dp/B01IAGSD68/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1511432940&sr=8-2&keywords=SSD+512gb[Image]



I have this one from last amazon sale it was around £80 and probably tomorrow will be on sale!!!

Using as a secondary ssd (have Sammy pro as boot) for installing games and wouldn't mind using as boot drive.

I'll definitely buy it goes down to £80-£90

nw104hh11 h, 18 m ago

Why would you even think about it???Pay a bit extra for a fast 512GB SSD …Why would you even think about it???Pay a bit extra for a fast 512GB SSD and forget about this one



The SSD might be fine. It might well be that the USB caddy they've used is the bottleneck.

Can someone tell me how this is good when a 4tb one costs 100 quid?
Edited by: "louloul" 23rd Nov

nw104hh12 h, 27 m ago

Good deal, but write speed only 100 MB/s & that's ridiculous, my USB stick …Good deal, but write speed only 100 MB/s & that's ridiculous, my USB stick write speed is 150MB/s...


How much (and size) was this 150MB/s USB stick?

Rofl.... maplin 500gb or sammy 500gb... similar price but a no brainer

Good price but slow SSD.

alababaju35 m ago

How much (and size) was this 150MB/s USB stick?



I have two, one is Sandisk Extreme 128GB (bought it on ebay for around £30-£35), the second one is a treat Duracell Professional 128GB, ebay again & pain only £25 from a private seller... and this one is slightly faster than Sandisk on 150MB/s...

Why are people obsessed about write speed and particularly about max throughput? If you want maximum write speed and never read I recommend /dev/null!

If you use the SSD to install games or as an OS drive then you are usually reading from disk (which is 400MB/s continuous reads; random reads is unclear). If the OS swaps (which is one reason you'd want an SSD) the OS will usually write small 4k blocks, not max troughput continuous writes.

You obsess about a single number that is mostly relevant for copying movies around. I'd need at least 4 numbers (random/continuous read/write) to judge what an SSD is suitable for.

Edit: 8.1k IOPS sounds pretty slow for random access, though.
Edited by: "jomay" 23rd Nov

jomay5 h, 12 m ago

Why are people obsessed about write speed and particularly about max …Why are people obsessed about write speed and particularly about max throughput? If you want maximum write speed and never read I recommend /dev/null!If you use the SSD to install games or as an OS drive then you are usually reading from disk (which is 400MB/s continuous reads; random reads is unclear). If the OS swaps (which is one reason you'd want an SSD) the OS will usually write small 4k blocks, not max troughput continuous writes.You obsess about a single number that is mostly relevant for copying movies around. I'd need at least 4 numbers (random/continuous read/write) to judge what an SSD is suitable for.Edit: 8.1k IOPS sounds pretty slow for random access, though.




This is a portable drive, your post focuses on OS usage which is not the normal use of a portable drive.

alababaju25 m ago

This is a portable drive, your post focuses on OS usage which is not the …This is a portable drive, your post focuses on OS usage which is not the normal use of a portable drive.


You don't even know that you don't know what you are talking about... IOPS is more relevant than max throughput not only for OS's but also for many common tasks, for example copying lots of small files.

So what do you use a USB drive for? Your media collection which is written once and read many times? This SSD will be fine. Or do you want to back up small files? Then IOPS and random read/write is relevant. The ONLY scenario where this SSD will perform worse than competitors is if you backup an internal SSD over USB 3.0. Only then is a max throughput of >130MB/s relevant.

The funny bit is that ANY drive (even two striped Intel 730 SSDs!) will perform badly regarding IOPS on a USB port. IOPS seem to be limited to <8k IOPS over USB 3. Ever heard of protocol overhead etc? tomshardware.com/rev…tml
"Random I/O isn’t nearly as impressive. But that’s what we’d expect from USB (or any other interface, for that matter). You’ll see reads approaching 7400 IOPS in 4KB reads at a queue depth of one from USB 3.1, while Intel’s controller yields over 5400 IOPS. This is one discipline where VIA comes out ahead of Intel; the VL805 posts nearly 6800 IOPS."

In other words: get an internal SSD if you want performance.

jomay17 h, 36 m ago

You don't even know that you don't know what you are talking about... IOPS …You don't even know that you don't know what you are talking about... IOPS is more relevant than max throughput not only for OS's but also for many common tasks, for example copying lots of small files.So what do you use a USB drive for? Your media collection which is written once and read many times? This SSD will be fine. Or do you want to back up small files? Then IOPS and random read/write is relevant. The ONLY scenario where this SSD will perform worse than competitors is if you backup an internal SSD over USB 3.0. Only then is a max throughput of >130MB/s relevant.The funny bit is that ANY drive (even two striped Intel 730 SSDs!) will perform badly regarding IOPS on a USB port. IOPS seem to be limited to <8k IOPS over USB 3. Ever heard of protocol overhead etc? http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/usb-3.1-performance-benchmark,4037-2.html"Random I/O isn’t nearly as impressive. But that’s what we’d expect from USB (or any other interface, for that matter). You’ll see reads approaching 7400 IOPS in 4KB reads at a queue depth of one from USB 3.1, while Intel’s controller yields over 5400 IOPS. This is one discipline where VIA comes out ahead of Intel; the VL805 posts nearly 6800 IOPS."In other words: get an internal SSD if you want performance.


Way to go defending a crappy below-market performing drive because it's OK for your specific requirements

With insults throw in!

jomay17 h, 36 m ago

The ONLY scenario where this SSD will perform worse than competitors is if …The ONLY scenario where this SSD will perform worse than competitors is if you backup an internal SSD over USB 3.0. Only then is a max throughput of >130MB/s relevant.


So when I'm tracking musicians and need to copy the raw 192/24 stems which easily take up 100s of Gb..?

You should reign in your wild assumptions

Spark23rd Nov

The SSD might be fine. It might well be that the USB caddy they've used is …The SSD might be fine. It might well be that the USB caddy they've used is the bottleneck.


Unfortunately this is not a drive in a caddy. Inside the case is a surprisingly basic pcb with a chip and a USB connector soldered on. About 75% of the pcb is completely blank, the item could have been a quarter of the size.

I bought this 512GB drive early this year for £65. Ignoring the written specs, performance was just noticeably poor and made worse by the USB access causing spikes in cpu usage. This might have been unique to me or it might be normal for USB SSDs, I don't know. I auctioned it off on ebay and got £50 for it.

Sorry to the OP, but this is a bad purchase imo.
Edited by: "pubjoe" 24th Nov

JamesSmith8 h, 20 m ago

Way to go defending a crappy below-market performing drive because it's OK …Way to go defending a crappy below-market performing drive because it's OK for your specific requirementsWith insults throw in!So when I'm tracking musicians and need to copy the raw 192/24 stems which easily take up 100s of Gb..?You should reign in your wild assumptions


So were the original comments correct focusing only on sequential write speed? No, not at all!

You simply defend their oversimplification. I've mentioned several times that this drive isn't great, particularly for certain use-cases. But 100£ vs. at least 150£ for a Samsung T3 500GB makes a big difference and this drive may be ok for some use-cases (IF and that's a big IF the random read speed is ok-ish).

I'd personally never buy an external SSD, though. If I had to I'd get a normal SSD (e.g. this 480GB for 102£ hotukdeals.com/dea…843) and get an enclosure for ~10£. That way I could still use it internally...

Music is actually pretty benign. 192/24 music data takes 2GB/h uncompressed. So copying 1h music takes 27 secs with this drive. Make that 8 tracks and you are waiting a mere 3.5 minutes. Decent lossless compression (FLAC) will save you another 30% at least. That doesn't sounds bad to me, unless you do file-wide operations frequently, such as adjusting recording levels. To be honest, a plain old HDD (>100MB/sec sequential) is probably sufficient as well.
Edited by: "jomay" 24th Nov

jomay19 h, 1 m ago

Music is actually pretty benign. 192/24 music data takes 2GB/h …Music is actually pretty benign. 192/24 music data takes 2GB/h uncompressed. So copying 1h music takes 27 secs with this drive. Make that 8 tracks and you are waiting a mere 3.5 minutes. Decent lossless compression (FLAC) will save you another 30% at least. That doesn't sounds bad to me, unless you do file-wide operations frequently, such as adjusting recording levels. To be honest, a plain old HDD (>100MB/sec sequential) is probably sufficient as well.


A 5 minute 24 track recording session is 8Gb... but normally tracks are longer and have multiple takes. As I already said, these sessions can take up 100s of Gb. How do I know? It's what I've experienced! Unfortunately you chose to ignore that comment.

Another chap I know regularly copies hundreds of Gb of raw video for clients onto portable SSD.

I just don't think it's that helpful to make assumptions.

JamesSmith35 m ago

A 5 minute 24 track recording session is 8Gb... but normally tracks are …A 5 minute 24 track recording session is 8Gb... but normally tracks are longer and have multiple takes. As I already said, these sessions can take up 100s of Gb. How do I know? It's what I've experienced! Unfortunately you chose to ignore that comment.Another chap I know regularly copies hundreds of Gb of raw video for clients onto portable SSD.I just don't think it's that helpful to make assumptions.


A 5 minute 24 track 192kHz 24bit stereo recording is: 5*60*24*192000*3*2/1024^3 = 7.72 GB (as an uncompressed WAV file!) or 26.4MB/sec. Dumping such a take in real time on a HDD is still feasible, although the software needs to be ok (lots of random seeks will degrade a HDD to 6MB/sec and below).

24 track stereo recordings also sounds a bit extreme to me. Surely that's the exception rather than the norm, and it surely is not a "home production" you are talking about. No matter what, these 8GB that are mostly read and written sequentially is still small. I can fit 16x that (or >1h) in RAM at work. Don't get upset about this, music is beautiful without taking much bandwidth. Where's the problem?

Regarding assumptions: they are incredibly useful. Without assumptions and educated guesses computers or any other enigeering piece of work wouldn't exist - because we need assumptions and guesses to guide real work. I make, test, validate and discard assumptions every single day in my job so I can guide further work.

And I wouldn't touch this drive with a bargepole for work.

Mate, I don't know what you're blathering about? Upset about what?

We have a working set up thanks. 24 mono tracks not stereo.

"Assumption are incredibly useful" - yes if they are not wrong or distorted like yours were..

Anyway.......
Edited by: "JamesSmith" 25th Nov
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text