The 480GB has even better cost performance per £ if you want a bigger drive.

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/toshiba-q300-480gb-2-5-inch-solid-state-drive-internal-sata-iii-79-99-amazon-2438016?p=28032305

Anyone looking into this just be aware of reviews where quite a no. Of people say drive failed soon after buying... Not voted either way...

Wow - very surprised, always thought Toshiba HDs were good - have they outsourced manufacture on this one??

Toshiba purchased OCZ. Their realibility has got better so of you just want a boot drive where failure isn't the end of the world, then fine. Otherwise I really wouldn't bother. Used 100's of Toshiba and OCZ drives at work (purchased before I arrived) and the failure rate is so much higher than other brands we have such as Samsung, Kingston and Crucial.

Quite a number of Q300 and trion 100 drives failed due to a glitch in firmware v11.1. This can be fixed by firmware v11.2. I think the Q300 2016 version comes with newer firmware by default.

Reviews show very high failure rate.one reviewer bought 5 and 3 failed within days.that's product recall grade of failure imo.
comparred to say Samsung these Toshibas have significantly higher failure rate.and much shorter warranty.
I'd definitely avoid this brand for now.

I wonder if they were all old stock with the bad firmware.

Possible..but I wouldn't risk it.I'd stick to Samsung or maybe Sandisk.

Have they not heard of Quality Control?

Perfect timing for my new i7 5820k build. Going to run 2 of the 480GB versions of these in RAID 0 and use one 240GB version as a boot drive. Well priced SSD's. I notice on Amazon it says Q300 - 2016 version. I hope these are good.

2 questions... Why the 5820k and not I7 6700k? And secondly... If you are going for a nice CPU, why sully the build with a low end performing SSD? The Samsung is a superior product for a minor bump in price.

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Toshiba-Q300-240GB-vs-Samsung-850-Evo-250GB/m35974vs2977

(I don't really like userbenchmark, but they have fairly ok results for SSD comparisons as the test is super common).

You're talking Raid 0'ing a drive that has some pretty serious low end numbers.

Why not just get the Samsung that is nearly twice the speed at most operations straight up, without RAID 0. Also, RAID 0 on SSDs don't really get that great of results.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/ssd-raid-benchmark,review-32689.html

As you can see, RAID 0 often loses to the the double sized SSD option.

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/5798/samsung-850-evo-ssd-120gb250gb500gb1tb-review-best-ssd-for-the-money

Hi

Building a video editing rig for 4K / 1080p and a enjoyable editing experience (minimal lag in the timeline).

This is what I actually went with in the end due to Amazon deals coming up just in time for me to cancel my Toshiba's.

So my OS SSD is a Hylix one
http://www.novatech.co.uk/products/components/harddrives-internal/ssdsolidstate/240gbto400gb/hfs250g32tnd-3112a.html

My scratch disk (where I will keep my video files) is the Samsung Evo 850 and i'll be rendering to one these too :smiley: and then I have a 3TB 7200 mechanical drive for storage.

Video Editing and the 5820k make sense, it is one of the few situations where it is the right choice.

But I still don't get the RAID 0 of the lower tier drives. I get using it as a value drive, without RAID 0. It's 10 quid cheaper for the 250 versus the Samsung Evo... But once we consider putting them in RAID for performance gains, you are far better off just stumping up for the Evo 500 as you get more significant gains at around the same price.

Plus, you are doubling the chance of complete failure with a budget SSD...

got the 120gb free with my motherboard. Going to use as the boot drive, can't argue for free I suppose but not sure I'd drop the cash on one over the competition.