This collaborative space allows users to contribute additional information, tips, and insights to enhance the original deal post. Feel free to share your knowledge and help fellow shoppers make informed decisions.
Model: 2TB TeamGroup AX2 3D NAND 2.5" SATA III Internal Solid State Drive
Deal History
Deal History includes data from multiple reputable stores, such as Best Buy, Target, and Walmart. The lowest price among stores for a given day is selected as the "Sale Price".
Sale Price does not include sale prices at Amazon unless a deal was posted by a community member.
I bought one maybe two months back as a game drive because my main SSD was crowded. It's fine for those who don't need to write >350 GB at a time, which is most everyone. I probably have 10% longer load times over a much more expensive mid range drive, but meh?
I'd strongly suggest doing your own research before buying an SSD for your PS4. I haven't looked in a couple of years, but the consensus used to be that the pro models are able to better utilize them, while the og or slim models only show minimal or no improvements on loading times for most games. I was playing a lot of division 2 on my og ps4 at the time, so the 5-10 second load time improvements were good enough for me as they definitely added up over time
DRAM only matters for writes.........reads they are as fast as any other SATA SSD will be. DRAM-less SSD's are recommended for things like Steam Libraries which are (generally) write once and then read, so just like on a PS4 they are great "install once and read often" drives for xbox or ps4 libraries.
DRAM only matters for writes.........reads they are as fast as any other SATA SSD will be. DRAM-less SSD's are recommended for things like Steam Libraries which are (generally) write once and then read, so just like on a PS4 they are great "install once and read often" drives for xbox or ps4 libraries.
Wrong. The same old confusion between DRAM used for caching translation tables (used to lookup where the required data is and needed for both reads and writes but dont't keep write content) and SLC write cache buffers to cache write content which affects writes.
Dramless SSDs especially SATA that cannot use a Host Memory Buffer unlike nvme drives are typically much slower for reads than ones with dram. SATA dramless drives are worst of all worlds and may be good for archival storage. The peak read and write numbers are misleading.
This confusion even in some articles come from the days of hard drives where a dynamic ram cache was used to hold write content as a buffer. SSDs these days don't do that. They use a cache of NAND cells (SLC or pseudo SLC) for write content storing.
Without DRAM they have to read NAND to figure out where the data is and write to NAND to update the translation tables.
These days the price difference isn't that different from a decent SSD with dram amortized over the life time to justify these bottom tiers.
Wrong. The same old confusion between DRAM used for caching translation tables (used to lookup where the required data is and needed for both reads and writes but dont't keep write content) and SLC write cache buffers to cache write content which affects writes.
Dramless SSDs especially SATA that cannot use a Host Memory Buffer unlike nvme drives are typically much slower for reads than ones with dram. SATA dramless drives are worst of all worlds and may be good for archival storage. The peak read and write numbers are misleading.
This confusion even in some articles come from the days of hard drives where a dynamic ram cache was used to hold write content as a buffer. SSDs these days don't do that. They use a cache of NAND cells (SLC or pseudo SLC) for write content storing.
Without DRAM they have to read NAND to figure out where the data is and write to NAND to update the translation tables.
These days the price difference isn't that different from a decent SSD with dram amortized over the life time to justify these bottom tiers.
Wrong. The same old confusion between DRAM used for caching translation tables (used to lookup where the required data is and needed for both reads and writes but dont't keep write content) and SLC write cache buffers to cache write content which affects writes.
Dramless SSDs especially SATA that cannot use a Host Memory Buffer unlike nvme drives are typically much slower for reads than ones with dram. SATA dramless drives are worst of all worlds and may be good for archival storage. The peak read and write numbers are misleading.
This confusion even in some articles come from the days of hard drives where a dynamic ram cache was used to hold write content as a buffer. SSDs these days don't do that. They use a cache of NAND cells (SLC or pseudo SLC) for write content storing.
Without DRAM they have to read NAND to figure out where the data is and write to NAND to update the translation tables.
These days the price difference isn't that different from a decent SSD with dram amortized over the life time to justify these bottom tiers.
But does all this really matter for a SATA interface that maxes out at 500MBps?
But does all this really matter for a SATA interface that maxes out at 500MBps?
Good question. SSDs slow down to much less than that. The speeds in the spec are "up to" speeds. They get that speed only under some very specific and ideal conditions and are much less in mixed use. They also vary a lot depending on how much of the SSD is filled up. They rarely max out because of interface speeds except in some of the top tier SSDs.
Three things determine how fast or slow an SSD can be not just the bandwidth. Latency, bandwidth and iops. If the latency is high, for example, because they have a dramless translation, or the iops they can support is low because of a weak controller that is an overhead for every read.
In a large or sustained read, that might not amount to much amortized, but in a lot of short random reads, that can result in poor throughput. Even in sustained reads, the difference between ssds with dram and without dram is clear as in the first attached picture (regardless of brand). It gets worse with random reads. The second attached picture shows how a combination of dramless and weak controller as in these budget SSDs can be relatively high. Some of the top vendors make up for it with fast controllers or fast flash memory and so can have a dramless version have lower latency than another brand with dram. But that is out of reach for these budget. brands.
Same thing happens with memory too and why the same three factors determine how fast a memory stick really is even if they are connected to a fast bus.
Unfortunately, most SSD manufacturers don't provide detailed specs.
All of these are faster compared to a HDD in most conditions (some like this one may slow down to less than HDD speeds on sustained writes) but that doesn't mean any SSD is ok.
Dram and dramless is one of the top reasons for SSD differentiation in overall performance. Dramless were fine when SSDs were extremely expensive and it allowed relatively cheaper ones. But these days, the difference can be in a few tens of dollars to justify low tier SSDs with many low performing scenarios.
If you want to spend more but are sure you need a little more speed, yes. But since this is a SATA drive anyway I wouldn't worry that much about the difference, especially if you aren't sure. If you're looking for something for a laptop or desktop that supports NVMe drives, that's really the way to go, unless this will just be a data/archive drive, in which case you aren't going to care much anyway whether it has a DRAM cache. Either way, you won't find many (any?) other 2TB SSDs for about $100.
All of these are faster compared to a HDD in most conditions (some like this one may slow down to less than HDD speeds on sustained writes) but that doesn't mean any SSD is ok.
Dram and dramless is one of the top reasons for SSD differentiation in overall performance. Dramless were fine when SSDs were extremely expensive and it allowed relatively cheaper ones. But these days, the difference can be in a few tens of dollars to justify low tier SSDs with many low performing scenarios.
Do you have a link to an SSD with DRAM within 10-30% of this price?
What I'd really like to know is whether this would be a useful upgrade for a ~$100 computer that's currently booting from a spinning (2tb) drive.
Like
Helpful
Funny
Not helpful
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Do you have a link to an SSD with DRAM within 10-30% of this price?
What I'd really like to know is whether this would be a useful upgrade for a ~$100 computer that's currently booting from a spinning (2tb) drive.
I think you better use a cheap 120gb/256gb ssd for your OS and keep your data on the 2tb drive. I don't think a $100+ ssd could be justified for your $100 computer.
Leave a Comment
23 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
I bought one maybe two months back as a game drive because my main SSD was crowded. It's fine for those who don't need to write >350 GB at a time, which is most everyone. I probably have 10% longer load times over a much more expensive mid range drive, but meh?
https://www.tomshardwar
As near as I can tell, the various letter X2 drives from TramGroup are pretty much identical.
Dramless SSDs especially SATA that cannot use a Host Memory Buffer unlike nvme drives are typically much slower for reads than ones with dram. SATA dramless drives are worst of all worlds and may be good for archival storage. The peak read and write numbers are misleading.
This confusion even in some articles come from the days of hard drives where a dynamic ram cache was used to hold write content as a buffer. SSDs these days don't do that. They use a cache of NAND cells (SLC or pseudo SLC) for write content storing.
Without DRAM they have to read NAND to figure out where the data is and write to NAND to update the translation tables.
These days the price difference isn't that different from a decent SSD with dram amortized over the life time to justify these bottom tiers.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Dramless SSDs especially SATA that cannot use a Host Memory Buffer unlike nvme drives are typically much slower for reads than ones with dram. SATA dramless drives are worst of all worlds and may be good for archival storage. The peak read and write numbers are misleading.
This confusion even in some articles come from the days of hard drives where a dynamic ram cache was used to hold write content as a buffer. SSDs these days don't do that. They use a cache of NAND cells (SLC or pseudo SLC) for write content storing.
Without DRAM they have to read NAND to figure out where the data is and write to NAND to update the translation tables.
These days the price difference isn't that different from a decent SSD with dram amortized over the life time to justify these bottom tiers.
Dramless SSDs especially SATA that cannot use a Host Memory Buffer unlike nvme drives are typically much slower for reads than ones with dram. SATA dramless drives are worst of all worlds and may be good for archival storage. The peak read and write numbers are misleading.
This confusion even in some articles come from the days of hard drives where a dynamic ram cache was used to hold write content as a buffer. SSDs these days don't do that. They use a cache of NAND cells (SLC or pseudo SLC) for write content storing.
Without DRAM they have to read NAND to figure out where the data is and write to NAND to update the translation tables.
These days the price difference isn't that different from a decent SSD with dram amortized over the life time to justify these bottom tiers.
Three things determine how fast or slow an SSD can be not just the bandwidth. Latency, bandwidth and iops. If the latency is high, for example, because they have a dramless translation, or the iops they can support is low because of a weak controller that is an overhead for every read.
In a large or sustained read, that might not amount to much amortized, but in a lot of short random reads, that can result in poor throughput. Even in sustained reads, the difference between ssds with dram and without dram is clear as in the first attached picture (regardless of brand). It gets worse with random reads. The second attached picture shows how a combination of dramless and weak controller as in these budget SSDs can be relatively high. Some of the top vendors make up for it with fast controllers or fast flash memory and so can have a dramless version have lower latency than another brand with dram. But that is out of reach for these budget. brands.
Same thing happens with memory too and why the same three factors determine how fast a memory stick really is even if they are connected to a fast bus.
Unfortunately, most SSD manufacturers don't provide detailed specs.
All of these are faster compared to a HDD in most conditions (some like this one may slow down to less than HDD speeds on sustained writes) but that doesn't mean any SSD is ok.
Dram and dramless is one of the top reasons for SSD differentiation in overall performance. Dramless were fine when SSDs were extremely expensive and it allowed relatively cheaper ones. But these days, the difference can be in a few tens of dollars to justify low tier SSDs with many low performing scenarios.
Dram and dramless is one of the top reasons for SSD differentiation in overall performance. Dramless were fine when SSDs were extremely expensive and it allowed relatively cheaper ones. But these days, the difference can be in a few tens of dollars to justify low tier SSDs with many low performing scenarios.
What I'd really like to know is whether this would be a useful upgrade for a ~$100 computer that's currently booting from a spinning (2tb) drive.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
What I'd really like to know is whether this would be a useful upgrade for a ~$100 computer that's currently booting from a spinning (2tb) drive.
Leave a Comment