Corsair Neutron GTX 480GB Review



+ Add a Comment


i'm curious, since there is a measurable difference between drives you note a negative that it's not the fastest in every test.

however, at the speed differences you're talking about is it really perceptible to a person sitting at a desk waiting for an operation to finish? this is a sincere question. i'm looking for context so that the I can relate the table to real use situations.

my general, completely non-scientific observations on 2 different SSD's is that they both scream along pretty fast. i've yet to notice one as slower at any one task, even though the table here says one is slower than the other (twice as slow, in some cases).



We award points for being fastest by a sizable margin because if we decided to skip benchmark numbers, then all of our verdicts would be "it's pretty good" and we would barely need to test. That said, it is not likely one would experience a perceptible difference between this drive and a higher-scoring drive. It's for this exact reason that we've been recommending this drive over the Samsung 840 Pro and the OCZ Vector lately, because its performance is very close and it's much less expensive. 

And all that said, there are very specific tasks where one drive might be slower than another, but for drives like the Neutron GTX and the other top-tier drives don't really have any glaring weaknesses, so they all performance simiarly in all of our tests. 



thanks, Josh. that makes sense.

if you can discuss it without divulging state secrets, what would it take for a drive in this 'demographic' to get a Kick Ass award? it seems like simply running the table on benchmarks might not really differentiate itself enough (unless the margin was just that obscene) in regular use implementation.

what area is left for the devices to stand out? reliability (and how do you measure that?)? price? the sticker on the drive housing? who they voted for in the last election?