Another "affordable" 2TB SSD (Crucial MX300)

[jboydgolfer]

`

im too cheap to buy a GPU that Pricey

 

[R-T-B]

im too cheap to buy a GPU that Pricey

I know. It's special being me, I assure you.

 

[Komshija]

^^ Most people who will get a 500$ GPU or a 500$ SSD will have at least 2000$ worth PC. On the other hand, most people will not give over 200$ for a GPU.

 

[Ungari]

Well, it's good to see them coming down, but it's still extremely cost-prohibitive. I can't imagine anybody who would need that much SSD storage space at that price. I stupidly paid over $300 for my 512GB SSD after working much overtime for games... and the difference was... I couldn't even tell, heh.

People who are running older and less powerful CPUs will see a performance increase with SSDs when system RAM is exceeded due to poor memory management.

 

[Aquinus]

You know, people don't know what they're missing until they have it. I just switched jobs and my new workstation has a Acer S277HK and it's pretty awesome. It makes want one at home.

 

[RejZoR]

We used to have garbage workstations with Pentium 4, 512MB RAM and slow ass HDD's. I was clever and had one broken workstation so I forked another 512MB RAM stick from it. Now we have quad cores with 4GB RAM and SSD. It's like day and night.

 

[Filip Georgievski]

In my opinion, SSDs are faster and deliver more performance, but HDDs are more reliable.
I have 2 external HDDs ( 1 for movies on TV - 500GB Samsung 2.5 inch, and 1 HDD on PC - 640GB WD Green 6 years old in a D3 Samsung Docking Station which i use for game instals and some usefull stuff like drivers for my PCs and laptop and Windows installs).
In my PC i have a 120GB Kingston V300 ( OS, Drivers and Programs) and a 1TB WD Blue for Games and Storage.
SSD + HDD is the best bang for buck storage solutuon yet for me.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Not so much with people who spend $500 on graphics, I assure you.

I know because I'm like the one person with a $500 graphics card on 1080p in this whole forum.

Nope, me too. There are quite a few, because even "simple" 1080p can be more than many GPU's can reliably handle all the time.

 

[R-T-B]

Nope, me too. There are quite a few, because even "simple" 1080p can be more than many GPU's can reliably handle all the time.

Thanks. Now I don't feel special.

 

[Vayra86]

Honestly this MX300 is one of the most interesting SSD's on the consumer tier right now.

Price/GB is getting a serious drop from one of the most notable SSD companies, this is an example others will be forced to follow. The good name of the MX line is in the consumer's advantage even though its performance is lower than the previous drives.. For example, you can be dead sure Samsung is going to want to position something at the same level, and at least similar performance because that's what is selling their EVO's right now (similar price, better perf - even though nobody could ever notice the difference in perf).

FWIW the only SSD's I would ever consider are Intel, Samsung and Crucial. All the rest have had extremely questionable SSD's in the past and are not stellar in any way, neither endurance nor performance nor Price/GB.

This hasn't changed.

About SSHD, this is usually a form of SSD caching, and will only be close to SSD responsiveness when stuff is actually cached - that is - frequently used. Great for applications, worthless for data, and performance can be all over the place and differ completely per use case and even application. That being said, I also *feel* it is the least reliable drive you can get because it requires more parts, and each part can fail. It's cost effective and that is about all you can say of it.

 

[RealNeil]

I've recently purchased a few M.2 256GB Crucial drives that were refurbished. I got two of them for $64.00 shipped.

Shop around. You'll find deals if you keep looking.

 

[yotano211]

Dream on. 4TB SSD for $500 is unlikely because it just doesn't compute. Making 1-2TB cheaper, that makes whole lot of sense because this is what's a direct replacement for current HDD's that most people have. 4TB is exotic even for regular HDD's even today. I was perfectly happy with 2TB capacity of my former HDD so I've decided to go with 2TB SSD as well. It shoud serve me great for years capacity wise. I might at one point replace my external 2TB USB drive with 4TB or more for movies and bulk stuff, but for countless games, 2TB is huge capacity.

4TB for around $800 I can somehow see if you really go budget on components, but something properly capable, nah, I don't think so.

This is what I saw at CES 2016 when I was there and heard it on tech sites some days later.

https://www.techpowerup.com/219116/mushkin-shows-off-a-500-dollar-4-tb-ssd

I've recently purchased a few M.2 256GB Crucial drives that were refurbished. I got two of them for $64.00 shipped.

Shop around. You'll find deals if you keep looking.

I just picked up a 500gb m.2 evo 850 for 109 on Amazon. They are 119.

 

[RealNeil]

I bought two 500GB Crucial M.2 drives about 6 months ago and they were $150+ each, so $109 is a good price.
But two 256GB M.2 drives for $32.00 each was fantastic.

 

[RejZoR]

If history though me anything, SSD's with internal RAID were never any good...

 

[newtekie1]

If history though me anything, SSD's with internal RAID were never any good...

Practically all SSDs use internal RAID...

 

[hat]

People who are running older and less powerful CPUs will see a performance increase with SSDs when system RAM is exceeded due to poor memory management.

Okay, but who's buying a 2TB SSD while they have crap CPU and RAM? I'd pay the $40 or so for a 128GB SSD in an older/slower system, but $500 for 2TB? Nope.

 

[Ithanul]

Crucial do make some nice drives. Good to see SSD growing in size.

Still rocking a old M4 512GB that I nabbed in a sale many years ago, but I am still not paying that much for large SSD considering for a price like that you can nab several 2-3TB HDDs.

 

[JunkBear]

In term of overall everyday read-write performance what is better between a ssd or à Western Digital Black 64megs cache 7200rpm?

 

[RejZoR]

Practically all SSDs use internal RAID...

No they don't. One thing is controller communicating with individual NAND chips (your "RAID") and another where you have 2 controllers that are paired with internal RAID to work as ONE controller and then presented to the system as 1x SSD drive. That has never worked well and personally I'd stay the hell away from such drives, especially when you're aiming at huge capacities like 2TB and beyond.

 

[Ungari]

Okay, but who's buying a 2TB SSD while they have crap CPU and RAM? I'd pay the $40 or so for a 128GB SSD in an older/slower system, but $500 for 2TB? Nope.

2TB, no. But 256MB or 120MB, why not?

 

[JunkBear]

2TB, no. But 256MB or 120MB, why not?

GB you mean. Nobody buy hdd with Megabytes anymore hehehe

 

[newtekie1]

No they don't. One thing is controller communicating with individual NAND chips (your "RAID") and another where you have 2 controllers that are paired with internal RAID to work as ONE controller and then presented to the system as 1x SSD drive. That has never worked well and personally I'd stay the hell away from such drives, especially when you're aiming at huge capacities like 2TB and beyond.

That is two different implementation of RAID, but still RAID in both cases. You're talking about a nested RAID, and it used to be the only way to get a decently sized SSD. And I don't even think there are that many of those around anymore, if any in the consumer market. But all SSDs do use RAID. The NAND chips are used in a RAID 0 configuration. A single NAND chip is not fast enough to provide the sustained read/write speeds we see and expect from a SSD. So the controller strips the data across multiple NAND chips. This is RAID 0. This is also why you'll pretty much never see a drive with a single NAND chip, even though we have NAND that is big enough at this point. The 1TB MX300 uses 8 chips, so a single chip would be enough for a 120GB SSD. But instead they would use multiple smaller chips, likely at least 4, to get the speed they need

 

[peche]

great!, crucial drives are quite brave warriors, i still have my 64GB's SSD on my rig rocking the world, it also says 98% remaining life... since a year ago the same message, that little devil always blows my mind with the faster experience on the OS boot time and other apps loading time!

regards,

 

[RejZoR]

That is two different implementation of RAID, but still RAID in both cases. You're talking about a nested RAID, and it used to be the only way to get a decently sized SSD. And I don't even think there are that many of those around anymore, if any in the consumer market. But all SSDs do use RAID. The NAND chips are used in a RAID 0 configuration. A single NAND chip is not fast enough to provide the sustained read/write speeds we see and expect from a SSD. So the controller strips the data across multiple NAND chips. This is RAID 0. This is also why you'll pretty much never see a drive with a single NAND chip, even though we have NAND that is big enough at this point. The 1TB MX300 uses 8 chips, so a single chip would be enough for a 120GB SSD. But instead they would use multiple smaller chips, likely at least 4, to get the speed they need

Those are memory channels. Cheap controllers use fewer controller channels, that's why they have lower read and write capabilites (especially write).

 

[newtekie1]

Those are memory channels. Cheap controllers use fewer controller channels, that's why they have lower read and write capabilites (especially write).

Memory channels refers to striping on volatile memory, RAID0 is striping on non-volatile memory. Same basic concept.