Bow down to the new SSD king

Bow down to the new SSD king
Surprisingly budget oriented crucial MX500

anandtech.com/show/12165/the-crucial-mx500-1tb-ssd-review
tomshardware.com/reviews/crucial-mx500-ssd-review-nand,5390.html

Other urls found in this thread:

computerbase.de/2017-12/crucial-mx500-ssd-test/2/#diagramm-installation
techpowerup.com/reviews/Crucial/MX500_1_TB/9.html
anandtech.com/show/11766/the-crucial-bx300-480gb-ssd-review-back-to-mlc
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>read and write speeds of 510-560 mb/s

not that fast, bare in mind the iMac Pro is 3k mb/s

Overall looks like a good option, glad crucial is still kicking
I hope this is bait

>1TB for $260
if 500GB is $130 at all time, not just on some sale
it might be pretty nice

It's SATA you fantastically retarded motherfucker.

where is optane

Yes, but ...
Let us talk about... Reliability.

Well, lets.
Crucials track record is quite good, had one minor issue long time ago with their first major mainstream drive, m4, called 5200 hours bug.

Samsung and intel have it worse with one fucking up whole 840 TLC lineup and the otherone had major issue with where whole ssd lost partition and only 8MB space appeared, it was called "8MB Bug"

This.. Why would anyone buy anything over 120gb to install more than their OS(es) there and if they game, some game(s) if those stuff aren't reliable?

No I mean SSDs in general compared to HDDs.

It may be zippy, but it hasnt be proven to me yet that SSDs (a glorified thumbdrive) have improved their long term performance record compared to traditional HDDs.

In my mind, an SSD is still a small thing that you stick your OS onto along with any frequently accessed programs that need high performance. While everything else like your games goes on an HDD.

> If you're made of money then maybe having an SSD for everything would be fine, if you had a Raid setup to improve the reliability.

I might be Slowpoke but ive not heard any news to change my mind about it.

Wait.
You are doubting reliability of SSDs?
Reliability as in ability to access your data over time and use?
Reliability as in not experiencing some kind of failure over unit of time?

and there are actually 3 of you who think like this?

Reliability of SSDs is much higher than HDDs because they have no moving parts. The "they only have 100 writes" meme has been debunked years ago. Modern SSDs will happily write 10s-100s terabytes of data.

> cancer digits
> Modern SSDs

All SSDs are modern. This isnt like fkin 2030 or something.

Also the problem with SSD that is noted is that they'll burn out, have a short circuit, or otherwise fry under the load. Whereas an HDD is going to have much fewer problems in that regard with the mechanical failure being the more likely condition. Just because it has no moving parts doesn't mean that the connections and chip/board quality isn't going to make it 2 year planned obsolescence.

OK, I am excited. I was just about to get 850 evo 500GB tomorrow since I am getting annoyed with how slow HDD deals with my constant ctrl+ s'ing in Photoshop. Gonna wait a bit untill MX500 gets to my country.

Optane is a 32GB cache. Pointless.

>While everything else like your games goes on an HDD.

Games benefit hugely from an SSD (load times).

they also tend to be the biggest things on your computer, so no they don't go on the SSD they go on the HDD
> unless its a really lightweight game that happens to use lots of system resources
> maybe a portable version which doesnt need to be installed, so you can just move it around as you please, and you put it back on the SSD when you're serious about it

Well, I mean that is the poorfag logic. But you're right, games are getting huge, which is making me realize I a 500GB SSD is enough. But I'd rather get another one than go back to HDD load times. The difference is significant, and it's exactly with those monster games where it matters.

> maybe a portable version which doesnt need to be installed
Since I am actually a poorfag atm that's kinda what I've been doing. If I'm bored of a game and want to try something new, I'll just temporarily move the folder to another hard drive.

yeah I think photoshop would be a good reason to have an SSD
> they never figured out how to make it stay completely in ram
> photoshop still offloads tons of shit to temp files on the drive rather than behaving like a normal program

>a 500GB SSD is not enough*

poor?
no it just means you have that much money to throw into something else
> why waste money when you can put it into something more effective

>Comparing SATA vs M.2
Sasuga iToddler

Like I said, the difference is massive. If you play games, dedicating an SSD to them is a very effective use of money, provided you already have an adequate CPU and GPU. I fucking hate load times.

Meh as I was typing that I was reminded of shit that I do as an uber-poorfag who even has probs scrounging up money for storage.

I actually take games that ive got installed and ill move their heavyweight data files/folders to portable and rename the game folder "SuchAndSuch-MissingFiles" and rename the executable so that it breaks the shortcuts and I wont try to play it.

Since its still installed technically I don't have to worry about it, I just wont run it. Until I feel the need and want to swap something else out for it (file moving intensifies). So it may remain installed but its not actually taking up the hard drive space at that moment.

Thats the status of Fallout Tactics and F.E.A.R right now on my system.

>SSD for games

You guys don't want to know how much space flight sims I have take.

>space flight

WTF was I thinking. I meant flight sims.

DOA

It's just as likey that the controller board on an HDD will burn out as the board on a SSD, which is to say, not very fucking likely. Furthermore, SSDs remain readable even after they exceed the maximum write cycles, so you can still retrieve your data.

It's about 0-10 percent slower than a Samsung 850 Evo 1 TB in real-life tests.

Read more on my favorite obscure German hardware site:

computerbase.de/2017-12/crucial-mx500-ssd-test/2/#diagramm-installation

Crucial is really pathetic. They can't even beat a 5 year old drive by Samsung?

THANK YOU, BASED CRUCIAL!

Anyone know what's going on with the M2 SSDs in this bench?
techpowerup.com/reviews/Crucial/MX500_1_TB/9.html

why you even care about fucking SPEED on a shit SATA drive? PCIe NVMe have been out for a long time already.

Yeah, not really sure what OP is going on about. My old 840 pro is faster.

Crucial's BX300 line is better. They have competitive speeds, but are outfitted with MLC NAND, not that garbage TLC stuff.

Game sizes have been getting extremely bloated recently to the point that I had to clean out my SSD's to fit games I wanted. It's getting annoying.

Did you think of moving the temp folder to a ramdisk?

>they also tend to be the biggest things on your computer, so no they don't go on the SSD they go on the HDD
So uninstall them when you're done playing? I don't know why you'd buy a SSD and then store shit that requires fast hardware on your HDD. I can't stand the stuttering you get in games when the levels are streaming in. Your HDD is for shit that speed doesn't matter for, movies, archives, etc.

BX and MX are both TLC since 300, you dumb fuck. MX200 was the last to fully use MLC (actually eMLC).

Wrong. This years 300 is 3D nand MLC not TLC.

anandtech.com/show/11766/the-crucial-bx300-480gb-ssd-review-back-to-mlc

NIGGER

Literally dead in the water.

B8

Tpu science over here.
Ms office installation benchmark.
I hope they ran it at 720p to remove all the gpu bittlenecks.

yeah I'd much rather see how big numbers you get in some random synthetic benchmark that doesn't even matter in the real world