The value option?
I have seen SF2281 drives blow their way past the 500MB/s mark, so the numbers Kingston quote are likely very achievable. Unfortunately, it seems that unless the rest of your hardware is as up-to-date as the SSDs themselves, you’re likely to be left in the dust.
Still, these are phenomenal drives that really do deliver even on slightly dated hardware, but are they worth the cost?
To find out, I’m going to compare the HyperX to Crucial’s cheaper but more capacious M4 drive, which uses a Marvell controller:
Data throughput in Megabytes per Second (MB/s)
Longer bars are better
Yes, the HyperX is faster in almost all respects, but Kingston is asking £392 for the bare 240GB drive while the 256GB Crucial drive can be had for nearly £50 less. Clearly, if you can make use of the HyperX’s full potential you should be opting for the SandForce controller. But if your system is anything like mine - Core 2 Duo E6850, Marvell 88SE9120 Sata controller - the real-world difference between these drives is going to be negligible.
So, for the all-out enthusiast who must have the latest and greatest, the HyperX is going to be a worthy contender. However, if you’re simply looking to boost the performance of older hardware, perhaps there could be wiser investments to be made in the SSD world.
Personally, I might hold out to see how this drive holds up against the likes of the Vertex 3 and Wildfire once the promised firmware update is released. Nevertheless, anyone serious about SSD performance should keep an eye on this one. ®
More Storage Reviews
USB 3.0 HDDs
Kingston Technology HyperX 240GB SSD
its blindingly obvious that all (even older) SSD out perform standard platter based drives in all respects. ?
a good SATA drive, real world speeds top out at around 60MB/s transferring a large file....
my next upgrade is going to be a smallish SSD an set up as a boot device
Comparisons to a normal non-ssd HDD please?