News


Best SSDs: July 2014

Best SSDs: July 2014

Given the recent product releases in the SSD industry, it is now a good time to do another purchase recommendation post. We did our first “Best SSDs” post in November last year and it received quite a bit of interest by providing simple recommendations instead of a several thousand word analysis like we usually do in our reviews. Quite surprisingly, our previous recommendations were still accurate until about a month ago when Crucial rolled out the MX100, so despite the fact that the article is now eight months old there was no immediate need for an updated post until now. 

Similar to the previous post, I will be splitting the recommendations in different categories by form factor and performance. Note that pricing fluctuates constantly and there may be regional differences, so I would still recommend to check the prices from several stores and use your own consideration when buying a drive. 

Enthusiast and Professional Level: Samsung SSD 850 Pro & SanDisk Extreme Pro

The Samsung 850 Pro is one unique drive. It is the first mainstream SSD to utilize 3D NAND, which gives Samsung substantial advantages in performance and endurance. As a result, the 850 Pro is the fastest SSD we have tested and is backed up by an industry-leading 10-year warranty or 150TB of writes, which ever comes first. Feature wise the 850 Pro supports both TCG Opal 2.0 / eDrive and DevSleep, meaning that the drive is suitable for mobile as well as corporate environments. The 850 Pro also has a feature called RAPID, which utilizes a portion of the system DRAM (up to 4GB) to cache reads and writes to further increase performance.

The 850 Pro’s toughest competitor is SanDisk’s Extreme Pro. While the 850 Pro is generally a faster drive, the Extreme Pro comes very close. It too is backed up by a 10-year warranty, although the write endurance is only rated at 80TB. Due to higher over-provisioning, the usable capacities in the Extreme Pro end up being slightly smaller compared to the 850 Pro and you also lose TCG Opal 2.0 / eDrive support.

  Samsung SSD 850 Pro SanDisk Extreme Pro
Pros – Higher performance
– Higher usable capacities
– Higher endurance
– TCG Opal 2.0 & eDrive support
– RAPID
– Price of the larger capacities
Cons – Price of the larger capacities – No hardware encryption support
– Lower endurance

I am usually not a big fan of pros&cons tables because they tend to oversimplify things, but in this case I think the comparison does justice and provides a quick way to compare the 850 Pro and Extreme Pro. It is clear that the 850 Pro is ultimately the better drive but the Extreme Pro can be a better option if you are in the look for a high performance 1TB-class drive but do not see any additional value in the 850 Pro’s features (namely hardware encryption and RAPID). 

Capacity 120/128GB 240/256GB 480/512GB 960/1024GB
Samsung SSD 850 Pro $130 ($1.02/GB)
£90 (£0.70/GB)
$200 ($0.78/GB)
£155 (£0.61/GB)
$400 ($0.78/GB)
£295 (£0.58/GB)
$700 ($0.68/GB)
£485 (£0.47/GB)
SanDisk Extreme Pro $210 ($0.88/GB)
£135 (£0.56/GB)
$370 ($0.77/GB)
£252 (£0.53/GB)
$600 ($0.63/GB)
£392 (£0.41/GB)

That said, if you want the best SATA 6Gbps drive in the market, the 850 Pro is the drive to buy. You will have to pay a small premium at the higher capacities, although the price delta may even out in the future and make the 850 Pro a better buy in all aspects. Alternatively, if the prices of the Extreme Pro come down (or you are in a region where the price difference is higher than in the US), the Extreme Pro is a viable alternative as long as you have no need for hardware encryption.

Mainstream Level: Crucial MX100 & Samsung SSD 840 EVO

In the mainstream segment, the MX100 dominates the market. The exceptional pricing alone makes the MX100 an alluring drive but the fact that the drive supports power-loss protection, DevSleep and hardware encryption (TCG Opal 2.0 & eDrive) makes it an excellent bang for the buck. With performance good enough for typical client workloads, there is simply no way you can go wrong with the MX100, unless your workload requires a higher performance drive.

Capacity 120/128GB 250/256GB 500/512GB 1TB
Crucial MX100 $75 ($0.59/GB)
£54 (£0.42/GB)
$110 ($0.43/GB)
£94 (£0.37/GB)
$215 ($0.42/GB)
£161 (£0.31/GB)
Samsung SSD 840 EVO $90 ($0.75/GB)
£57 (£0.47/GB)
$140 ($0.56/GB)
£88 (£0.35/GB)
$260 ($0.52/GB)
£165 (£0.33/GB)
$470 ($0.47/GB)
£300 (£0.30/GB)

The only disadvantage of the MX100 is the lack of a 1TB model, which is why I am recommending the 840 EVO as well since it comes in 1TB flavor. In terms of features and performance the MX100 and 840 EVO are very close with the biggest difference being that the EVO has no power-loss protection, although on the other hand it supports RAPID, which the MX100 does not have. As a result, the only reason I am picking the MX100 over the 840 EVO is the price but if you can find the 840 EVO cheaper (or are looking for a 1TB drive), then do not hesitate to buy the 840 EVO instead of the MX100.

Killing Off The SATA Bottleneck: Samsung XP941

PCIe has certainly been one of the most discussed topics within the SSD industry this year. While the true roll out of native PCIe SSDs will not happen until next year, there are now a couple of drives available. The only drive that I find interesting is the Samsung XP941 because it is currently the only native PCIe 2.0 x4 drive, whereas the other drives in the market are limited to x2, which does not provide that much benefit over SATA 6Gbps. As a result the XP941 is the fastest client SSD we have tested to date and is hence the ultimate drive for performance hungry enthusiasts.

The only downside is that you will need a Z97 based motherboard (or a Mac Pro) to be able to boot from the drive and even then you are limited to certain models (at this point ASRock Z97 Extreme6 is the only board with official boot support, although the drive can be made bootable in some ASUS boards as well). Thus I would only recommend the XP941 if you are running a supported motherboard because otherwise the XP941 can only be used as a secondary drive. Compared to the 850 Pro you will also lose hardware encryption plus RAPID support and the warranty drops to three years. 

Capacity 256GB 512GB
Samsung XP941 $311 ($1.21/GB)
$500 ($0.98/GB)
£400 (£0.78/GB)

The pricing is also rather high compared to the 850 Pro but that is the premium you have to pay for cutting edge technology. Interestingly enough, the 512GB XP941 is currently available in NewEgg even though the drive is an OEM product. Unfortunately the 256GB model is not but you can still find it from RamCity, which was the first vendor to sell the XP941 to consumers and also supplied us with review samples. 

All in all, if you are willing to pay the premium and sacrifice support for the opportunity to be at the edge of a new technology, the XP941 is the drive to buy. 

The Tiny, Yet Powerful mSATA: Crucial M500 mSATASamsung SSD 840 EVO mSATA & Plextor M6M

While the SSD and PC industries are moving away from mSATA to M.2, there is a notable upgrade market for mSATA drives. mSATA never really took off so the available SKUs are still rather limited, but fortunately there are a couple of drives that stand out. The first one is the mSATA version of the Samsung 840 EVO, which is the little brother of the 2.5″ 840 EVO we already recommended above. You get the same set of features (hardware encryption, DevSleep, RAPID…) and performance as with the full size 840 EVO, so the EVO mSATA is a great value despite its small size.

An alternative to the 840 EVO mSATA is Plextor’s M6M. The M6M lacks TCG Opal 2.0 and eDrive compliance and is also a bit slower than the 840 EVO, but it is still a good option for typical client workloads as long as the lack of hardware encryption is not a deal breaker. 

Update: I have added Crucial M500 mSATA to the list since it is the most affordable mSATA SSD and still offers a great set of features (hardware encryption and power-loss protection) and decent performance. Initially I left it out as I thought it had been discontinued like its 2.5″ sibling but looks like it is still available and seems to be the best value. 

Capacity 64GB 120/128GB 250/256GB 500/512GB 1TB
Samsung SSD 840 EVO mSATA $100 ($0.83/GB)
£70 (£0.58/GB)
$160 ($0.64/GB)
£105 (£0.42/GB)
$300 ($0.60/GB)
£185 (£0.37/GB)
$500 ($0.50/GB)
£330 (£0.33/GB)
Plextor M6M $60 ($0.94/GB)
£50 (£0.78/GB)
$86 ($0.67/GB)
£83 (£0.64/GB)
$150 ($0.59/GB)
£116 (£0.46/GB)
$360 ($0.70/GB)
Crucial M500 mSATA $75 ($0.59/GB)
£52 (£0.43/GB)
$125 ($0.52/GB)
£89 (£0.37/GB)
$240 ($0.50/GB)
£168 (£0.35/GB)

The 840 EVO mSATA does not come in 64GB flavor at all, so if you are looking for a small and cheap boot mSATA drive, then the M6M is our only recommendation, although I strogly advice that you pay $26 more for doubled capacity. At 120/128GB the M6M is a better pick due to its cheaper price, unless you see added value in the features of the 840 EVO mSATA. However, at 250/256GB and higher the EVO is certainly a better value for the money.

Given the price of the M500 mSATA, it is the best value for most consumers. While performance is not as good as with the 840 EVO, the M500 mSATA is fast enough for average consumer workloads and is thus the drive we recommend. Users who seek for more performance in an mSATA form factor may find the 840 EVO to be worth the extra money but otherwise the M500 mSATA is a better buy. The only exception is at 1TB where the 840 EVO mSATA is the only option.

The Gumstick M.2: Crucial M550 M.2

The market for aftermarket M.2 SSDs is relatively small right now since systems with M.2 have not been shipping for long but the market is constantly growing. I could not find many available on NewEgg but if I was on the market for one I would pick Crucial’s M.2 version of the M550. We have not reviewed the M.2 version but it is fairly safe to assume that the performance is similar to the 2.5″ version (our review). The M550 M.2 is type 2280, so make sure that it is compatible with your motherboard or laptop since some only accept smaller M.2 sizes. Like the MX100, the M550 M.2 features an extensive feature set including power-loss protection and TCG Opal 2.0 / eDrive support along with DevSleep support. 

Note: The M550 M.2 is a SATA 6Gbps drive, so before buying the drive make sure that the slot in your motherboard or laptop supports SATA. Some only support PCIe, meaning that the M550 will not work in such slot. 

Capacity 128GB 256GB 512GB
Crucial M550 M.2 $100 ($0.78/GB)
£68 (£0.53/GB)
$170 ($0.66/GB)
$330 ($0.64/GB)
£228 (£0.45/GB)

 

To Conclude:

The last couple of months have been very interesting in the SSD industry. We have seen quite a few new SSDs and it seems like the flow will not end. From what I have heard, we should see several TLC NAND based SSDs this year, which will help to drive the cost per gigabyte down. Additionally, more PCIe SSDs should start to roll out early next year, so the XP941 should finally see some real competition.

Nokia Announces New Low Cost Lumia 530

Nokia Announces New Low Cost Lumia 530

Nokia has had a lot of success with Windows Phone in the more budget-oriented segment of the market. The Lumia 630, which we recently reviewed, does well in its position in the $150-200 device bracket. But Nokia is hoping to target buyers at even lower price points with the new Lumia 530 which positions itself to take on other Android devices at the $100-150 segment of the market. At least in its name it is a successor to Nokia’s Lumia 520 which was the most popular Windows Phone, and the two are compared down below.

Lumia 520 and 530
  Lumia 520 Lumia 530
SoC 1GHz Dual Core Krait (MSM8227) + Adreno 305 1.2GHz Quad Core Cortex A7 (MSM8212) + Adreno 302
Memory 512MB LPDDR2 512MB LPDDR2
Storage 8GB NAND + MicroSDHC 4GB NAND + MicroSDXC 
Display 4” 800×480 WVGA LCD 4” 854×480 FWVGA LCD
Cellular Connectivity GPRS/EDGE/HSPA+ GPRS/EDGE/HSPA+
Dimensions 119.9 x 64 x 9.9 mm, 124g 119.7 x 62.3 x 11.7 mm, 129g
Camera 5MP Rear Facing w/ F2.4 aperture 5MP Rear Facing w/ F2.4 aperture
Battery 5.291Wh 5.291Wh
OS Windows Phone 8.1 Windows Phone 8.1
Other Connectivity 802.11b/g/n + BT 4.0, USB2.0, GPS/GNSS 802.11b/g/n + BT 4.0, USB2.0, GPS/GNSS
SIM Size Micro-SIM Micro-SIM (dual SIM variant)

As you can see, the Lumia 530 has many similarities to its predecessor. Inside it makes the move from Qualcomm’s Snapdragon S4 platform to the newer Snapdragon 200 platform. It’ll be interesting to see how the quad core 1.2GHz Cortex A7 implementation fares against the 1GHz dual core Krait implementation. The GPU takes a performance hit, going from the Adreno 305 to the 302. Storage similarly takes a small step down with half the internal NAND of the Lumia 520, but with support for MicroSDXC up to 128GB rather than 64GB in the 520. RAM and connectivity remains the same with 512MB of LPDDR2 memory, single stream 802.11n WiFi, Bluetooth 4.0, and 21.1Mbps HSPA+. The battery chemistry remains the same as well at 1430mAh and 3.7V.

The front of the device sports an 854×480 LCD display, with the extra 54 pixels compared to the Lumia 520 being used for the on-screen buttons in a similar fashion to the Lumia 630. The move from a 15:9 display aspect ratio to a 16:9 ratio allows for a small decrease in the width of the device. The 530 has an appreciable increase in thickness compared to its predecessor with a thickness of 11.7mm at its thickest point compared to 9.9mm on the 520. No apparent changes to the camera have been made with a 5MP F2.4 sensor on the back and there’s no front-facing camera.

The 530 seems like a mixed bag of upgrades and downgrades compared to the 520. At 4GB of storage it really necessitates buying a MicroSD card even for users who rarely use apps, while the 8GB in the 520 leaves more breathing room. The increase in thickness is also disappointing but in the 530’s price bracket there’s no pressure to battle it out for the title of thinnest smartphone. In many ways it feels less like an upgrade and more like a device of its own. It will be interesting to see how users feel it compares to the original Lumia 520.

The Lumia 530 will be launching in single and dual-sim variants in August with a target price point of €85. Ignoring differences in taxes and market situations that translates to rougly $114 in the US or £67 in the UK. 

Z97 Mini-ITX Review at $140: ASRock, MSI and GIGABYTE

With every new chipset release, a large part of the community is always interested in the smaller form factor builds. Building a small yet powerful system seems to be an expanding niche, and for Intel’s Z97 platform we took three of the cheape…

Apple Q3 2014 Fiscal Results Analysis

Apple Q3 2014 Fiscal Results Analysis

Today Apple announced its Q3 results for the period ending June 2014, and sales of the iPhone once again dominate revenue and earnings for the company.

Revenue for the quarter came in at $37.4B – a 6% increase year-over-year, and a down sequentially from the previous quarter.

Net profit was $7.7B for the quarter which is up 11.6% from the same period last year, and earnings per share came in at $1.28, also up over last year’s $1.07. Gross margin was up as well at 39.4% compared to 36.9% in Q3 2013.

Apple Q3 2014 Financial Results (GAAP)
  Q3’2014 Q2’2014 Q3’2013
Revenue (in Billions USD) $37.432 $45.646 $35.323
Operating Income (in Billions USD) $10.282 $13.593 $9.201
Gross Margin (in Billions USD) $14.735 $17.947 $13.024
Net Income (in Billions USD) $7.748 $10.223 $6.900
Margins 39.4% 39.3% 36.9%
Earnings per Share (in USD) $1.28 $1.66 $1.07

Once again, the iPhone is the dominate force for Apple right now, accounting for $19.75B in revenue for this quarter with 35.203 million iPhones sold. The device numbers and revenue are both down over last quarter, but sales are up 13% year-over-year with revenue close behind at a 9% gain. Apple doesn’t break down numbers for each model, but using some math we can see the revenue per unit sold at $561 which is a great number.

Software, Services, and App/Music store sales came in at $4.485B for the quarter which is down 2% compared to last quarter but up 12% year-over-year.

Mac sales were up again with 4.4 million Macs sold which accounted for $5.5B in revenue. Sales were up 18% and revenue was up 13% compared to Q3 2013, with an increase in sales of 7% over last quarter with revenue remaining flat.

iPad sales have definitely slowed, with the second quarter in a row of decline. Total sales were 13.2 million units for a revenue of $5.9B, but the device sales are down both year-over-year (9%) and sequentially (19%).

Unsurprisingly, iPod sales continued their decline with 2.9 million devices sold – down 36% year-over-year. Revenue for the iPod was $442M which was down 40% from Q3 2013. Somewhat surprising was that iPod sales ticked up 6% from last quarter, but revenues declined 4%.

Finally, accessories now account for about three times the revenue of the once ubiquitous iPod, with revenue for the quarter of $1.3 billion which is up 12% over last year’s numbers.

Apple Q2 2014 Revenue by Product (billions)
  Q3’2014 Q2’2014 Q3’2013 Revenue for current quarter
iPhone $19.751 $26.064 $18.154 52.8%
iPad $5.889 $7.610 $6.374 15.7%
Mac $5.540 $5.519 $4.893 14.8%
iPod $0.442 $0.461 $0.733 1.2%
iTunes/Software/Services $4.485 $4.573 $3.990 12%
Accessories $1.325 $1.419 $1.179 3.5%

During this quarter, Apple performed a 7-1 stock split, and returned $8 billion to shareholders through dividends and the share repurchase program. Apple will pay a dividend of $0.47 per share on August 14 for this quarter’s results.

Analysts were hoping for 36 to 38 million iPhones to be sold this quarter, with sales missing that mark. iPad sales were also lower than expected. With the new iPhone likely not being released until Q1 of fiscal year 2015, outlook for the next quarter is also lower. With the new iPhone not expected until late in  Fiscal Year Q4 (ending September), revenues are not expected to be bumped from new iPhone sales much until Q1 2015 results are available in January 2015. Revenue outlook for the next quarter is $37 to $40 billion.

Apple Q3 2014 Device Sales (thousands)
  Q3’2014 Q2’2014 Q3’2013
iPhone 35,203 43,719 31,241
iPad 13,276 16,350 14,617
Mac 4,413 4,136 3,754
iPod 2,926 2,761 4,569

While sales were still strong for the iPhone, the iPad has now declined in numbers for the second straight quarter. Mac sales were up a healthy 18% year-over-year which means the Mac is almost back to being the number two revenue stream for Apple. We seem to have hit some maturity in the tablet market, and upgrade cycles aren’t quite as quick as they are in the smartphone space. The waiting game is now on for new product announcements from Apple to keep the sales strong.

Google Play App Updated to 4.9.13 With Material Design App Pages

Google Play App Updated to 4.9.13 With Material Design App Pages

Google has begun the rollout of an update to the Google Play application on Android. At first glance the update doesn’t seem to have any big changes. The sliding menu is the same, and the Play Store home page is the same as it has been for a while. Once you actually navigate to the page for an app it’s very clear that this is a bigger update than a quick glance lets on. Google has redesigned the app pages with new animations and a new design to fit in with their new Material Design style.

Old Google Play on the left, new on the right.

As you can see, the new design is much different and this applies to almost every aspect of the design from the colors to the shapes to the animations. The first thing that stands out is the change in background color from grey to white. While this is a matter of personal preference, I find the white much more appealing than the grey. Google has also shifted around many parts of the application. The positions of app screenshots and the app changelog have been moved to put better focus on the actual information on the page. Apps that have a video trailer will have it prominently displayed at the top. The changes to animations are difficult to describe in photos but what can be said is that they take advantage of the idea of layers and objects in Material Design. As you scroll downward the page gradually begins to cover up the space where the trailer was as it is pushed offscreen. When selecting “read more” in the app changelog the top and bottom sections of the app are pushed offscreen and the user is greeted with a fullscreen view containing only the relevant information about the app description, changes, and developer info.

Upon scrolling down you can see that Google has increased the size of the application photos. With the video trailer moved to the top of the application there’s also much more space to display screenshots which is good for developers hoping to show off their application. Google has also added more color to the application by color coding the bars that represent the ratings given by users. The overall app itself also has fewer horizontal lines separating sections which leads to a much cleaner look, particularly in the reviews section of the app page. Finally, Google has moved the share and Google+ buttons down beneath the reviews section from its previous position right underneath the app screenshots.

This update isn’t quite the complete Material Design overhaul that users are excited for. That will likely come closer to the time that we see Android L released in the fall. But for now it gives good insight into where Google is headed with app design and what can be looked forward to for all of Google’s apps going into the future. As with all of Google’s app updates, it may take some time for the new application to reach your device.