Transcend SSD320 & SSD720 (256GB) Review
by Kristian Vättö on January 25, 2013 11:31 AM ESTFinal Words
Once again it's proven that the difference between SandForce based SSDs is extremely small. Transcend's SSD720 performs nearly identically to Corsair's Force GS and I'm willing to bet that the performance of all the other Toggle-Mode NAND based SF-2281 SSDs is also very similar. The SSD320 isn't a special case either as there are several SF-2281 SSDs with asynchronous NAND as well, such as Mushkin Chronos and OCZ Agility 3. The performance of both drives is exactly what you would expect when you look at the specifications, which isn't bad news but neither is it astonishing.
Pricing is fair but I find the SSD320 to be slightly overpriced. When you can get a Plextor M5S, Samsung SSD 840 or Intel SSD 330 for less, it's quite obvious which you will pick. If Transcend can lower the price enough to make the SSD320 cheaper than big-brand SSDs, then it's a viable option for those who are hunting for an affordable drive.
The biggest issue of smaller SandForce OEMs is to differentiate themselves from the others. There are at least half a dozen OEMs that have a lineup equivalent to Transcend. When you're selling the same product as your competitors, the only area where you can compete is price. This trend won't last forever. Races to the bottom often result in consolidation in the market.
The client SSD market currently has more manufacturers than it can feed in the long run. I'm not suggesting that Transcend will or should exit the market, but the smaller manufacturers with no unique products are the most at risk. What I would like to see is more Plextor-like manufacturers, who weren't very well known in the SSD industry but took the risk and designed their own firmwares for Marvell's controllers. In the end there aren't all that many different controller/firmware platforms, there is definitely room for a couple more.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
34 Comments
View All Comments
Beenthere - Saturday, January 26, 2013 - link
Many enthusiasts base their PC hardware purchases strictly on synthetic benches, which is laughable when many folks have no clue the benches are not necessarily accurate or representative of the actual performance of the hardware. It doesn't matter if it's an SSD, RAM, mobos, HDDs or other products, the benches can be very misleading.I defy anyone to accurately tell the difference in system performance in a blind test... between any popular SATA II and SATA III SSD, regardless of cost, when comparing the same size drives. The same goes for DRAM, I defy anyone to tell the difference in a blind test... between RAM running @ 1333 MHz. and @ 2000 MHz. in any Intel or AMD powered desktop PC. It's simply impossible to do though the uninformed will argue to their dying breathe but not actually run blind tests to prove it to themselves.
That being said, if you're willing to take a chance on lost data, regular firmware update requirements to fix issues, RMA's, etc. with an SSD, picking an SSD for most folks should be based on your needs, the SSD's reliability, compatibility, manufacturer reputation for warranty/service and price. FYI - Longer product warranties do not necessarily mean better quality drives be they SSDs or HDDs. You can completely forget benchmarks as they are for new, clean drives and mean nothing in the real world nor is the difference in system performance even discernible.
If you want a real good laugh - go to the major SSD maker websites and find the complete SSD warranty and read it carefully. Find out what your real cost/inconvenience/losses are if the SSD has a defect/fails. It ain't pretty... in many cases.
jason_mcallister - Sunday, January 27, 2013 - link
I really like your post and completely agree with your statements. I find it curious that more folks don't also see things this way. I was gullible in paying a premium for my DDR3-2400. If I had done some research before the purchase I would have realized that it wasn't a performance increase that I would have ever noticed. People, in which I include myself, are always looking at the benchmarks (metric tests) and kind of shut off the critical thinking process. Thankfully, I'm a little wiser these days and have a better process for making purchase decisions.alkhrt - Sunday, January 27, 2013 - link
It's great to see the price /GB close to $1., but 1TB worth of SSD ~$1000, while 1TB HDD ~$70. I can't believe with no moving parts etc. that SSD's are 14x more expensive to produce. Still feel like I'm getting the shaft buying one.Scour - Saturday, February 16, 2013 - link
The funny thing: The 320 was one of the cheapest 256GB-SSD at the arrival, only some old OCZ (240GB Vertex/Agilty 2, 256GB Petrol) were cheaper.Now it´s more expensive than M5S, M4 Hyper X 3k, Intel 335. OK, most SF-SSDs only offers 240GB, but for example the 335 ist about 14€ cheaper.
So I see no reason to buy a Transcend 320, my first choice in this class is the Plextor