Thursday, February 21st 2019

Crucial Intros 960GB Variant of BX500 SSD

Crucial late Thursday rolled out a 960 GB variant of its entry-level BX500 SATA SSD series (model: CT960BX500SSD1). The BX500 earlier came in capacities only up to 480 GB. The drive implements Micron's latest 96-layer 3D TLC NAND flash memory mated to an SMI SM2258XT DRAM-less controller. Its rated performance is same as the 480 GB model, with up to 540 MB/s reads and up to 500 MB/s writes. Built in the 7 mm-thick 2.5-inch form-factor, the drive takes advantage of the SATA 6 Gbps interface. The drive is now selling for USD $129.99 ($0.13 per GB).
Add your own comment

17 Comments on Crucial Intros 960GB Variant of BX500 SSD

#1
Assimilator
They're gonna have to drop the price if they hope to compete with the Kingston A400 960GB, which is $17 less on Amazon right now and selling like hotcakes.
Posted on Reply
#2
Sp33d Junki3
Not sure where you got pricing from.
A400 $113 BX500 $120 $7 difference is not much at all.
Posted on Reply
#3
Assimilator
Sp33d Junki3, post: 3999636, member: 102198"
Not sure where you got pricing from.
A400 $113 BX500 $120 $7 difference is not much at all.
Was going on the $130 MSRP mentioned in bta's post, but yeah I see it's already down to $120 on Amazon, so yes, much less of a compelling deal. On the upshot though, it will hopefully push the A400 even lower.
Posted on Reply
#4
cucker tarlson
Assimilator, post: 3999630, member: 7058"
They're gonna have to drop the price if they hope to compete with the Kingston A400 960GB, which is $17 less on Amazon right now and selling like hotcakes.
a400 is a slower drive



yeah,I know,you personally can't tell it's slower,but that changes nothing.it still is.
Posted on Reply
#5
Assimilator
cucker tarlson, post: 3999683, member: 173472"
a400 is a slower drive
Never said it isn't, but the point is that at this level of the market, price is king, not performance.
Posted on Reply
#6
cucker tarlson
Assimilator, post: 3999775, member: 7058"
Never said it isn't, but the point is that at this level of the market, price is king, not performance.
well,if it's down to a couple of bucks a reasonable person would choose a better price/performance option,not the absolutely cheapest one.


btw bx500 480 is cheaper here than a400,so I expect bx500 960gb to follow.
Posted on Reply
#7
Assimilator
cucker tarlson, post: 3999780, member: 173472"
well,if it's down to a couple of bucks a reasonable person would choose a better price/performance option,not the absolutely cheapest one.

btw bx500 480 is cheaper here than a400,so I expect bx500 960gb to follow.
The A400 960GB is 33% cheaper than BX500 960GB where I am, so pretty much a no-brainer.
Posted on Reply
#8
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Assimilator, post: 3999786, member: 7058"
The A400 960GB is 50% cheaper than BX500 960GB where I am, so pretty much a no-brainer.
How did a $17 difference now turn into a 50% cheaper?

Either way, if I'm putting out this kind of money for a drive, I'm putting out the little bit extra for one that isn't DRAMless. I mean, a WD Blue with it's DRAM cache is a better drive and only about $13 more than an A400.

These DRAMless drives are just not cheap enough to entice me to buy them except in the most budget oriented areas.
Posted on Reply
#9
dj-electric
So far, the BX500 have failed to impress me with pricing, they are just too close to MX500.

Crucial, please, start lowering those BX500 prices. You also have a tough competition from others in pricing, A400 960GB was just 99$ in sales now.
Posted on Reply
#10
Assimilator
newtekie1, post: 3999821, member: 20670"
How did a $17 difference now turn into a 50% cheaper?
I said "where I am", i.e. South Africa, i was just using Amazon prices because the majority of the users of this site are familiar with US prices. And I messed up the math, it was "only" 33% cheaper but that's still a lot.
Posted on Reply
#11
bonehead123
Yes, the price is one thing to complain about here, but why all the hype over a drive that is as dogg-ass slow as any other sata SSD, but also has ZERO dram....

major yAwN :shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#12
cucker tarlson
bonehead123, post: 4000406, member: 139670"
all the hype over a drive that is as dogg-ass slow as any other sata SSD,
slow compared to what that is currently available ?
Posted on Reply
#13
king of swag187
Assimilator, post: 3999630, member: 7058"
They're gonna have to drop the price if they hope to compete with the Kingston A400 960GB, which is $17 less on Amazon right now and selling like hotcakes.
Fun fact, the A400 has one of the largest failure rates of a SSD, all because of the controller...
Its up to you if your data is worth $17
Posted on Reply
#14
Assimilator
king of swag187, post: 4000916, member: 180102"
Fun fact, the A400 has one of the largest failure rates of a SSD, all because of the controller
Source?
Posted on Reply
#15
king of swag187
Quite literally all over the internet.
Personally, I've had a friend go through 3 SSD's with the same controller, another 4, another just on his second. A dropped hard drive is more reliable than a A400, and its controller
Posted on Reply
#16
Assimilator
king of swag187, post: 4001915, member: 180102"
Quite literally all over the internet.
Personally, I've had a friend go through 3 SSD's with the same controller, another 4, another just on his second. A dropped hard drive is more reliable than a A400, and its controller
So personal anecdotes are "all over the internet", good to know. Look up "burden of proof" when you get a chance.
Posted on Reply
#17
king of swag187
https://www.google.com/search?q=A400+SSD+failure&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS829US829&oq=A400+SSD+failure&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.3733j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
homelab/comments/90glkw
https://www.amazon.com/Kingston-120GB-Solid-SA400S37-120G/product-reviews/B01N6JQS8C/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_hist_1?pageNumber=1&filterByStar=one_star

A little google search goes a long way. Scroll down, and there you go!
Next time, literally upon up a browser tab instead of trying to attack me.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment