• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

SSD cost-benefit doubt

Since you're stuck in the 240GB range, it's not really going to matter between the Samsung or Crucial. (technical reason - those drive sizes aren't big enough to have enough flash chips inside for the SSD controllers to reach full performance - don't worry about it).

Just DON'T get the Kingston lol. After the marketing wank they pulled with the SSDNow V300, I'd not ever trust them again. Plus as others have said, it actually IS slower enough to notice - don't waste your money, even if it's way cheaper.
 
Hey, i fount another option;


SANDISK ULTRA II SSD

Sandisk seems to have warranty in my country (while Samsumg and Crucial are not very clear about that here)...

The performance should be similar?

TheLostSwede said:
ou can't get the BX300?
Click to expand...

Actually, i found it too
 
Tiamat said:
Hey, i fount another option;


SANDISK ULTRA II SSD

Sandisk seems to have warranty in my country (while Samsumg and Crucial are not very clear about that here)...

The performance should be similar?



Actually, i found it too
Click to expand...

What country?
 
theoneandonlymrk said:
No, i understand fully thats why i said wanted to add, not only do Samsung have inbuilt ram cache but they offer software that ALSO accelerates its use , and quite considerably ,
Click to expand...
Crucial’s software also accelerated cache use with Momentum Cache.

@Tiamat The Sandisk SSD’s are very good value/performance. I have a number of them.
 
Tiamat said:
Hey, i fount another option
Click to expand...
lol okay man, we need to know what your budget is, and what region of the world you are (because pricing can vary drastically around the world)

To answer your other question, I've had good luck with SanDisk drives and I'd recommend them. Also had good luck with the Ultra II's, but only with the 240GB and 960GB versions. They're slower but solid budget options. Basically the Ultra II "wins" if it's low enough cost to let you "move up" one capacity point.

Basically you're looking at 240/256GB drives right? If an Ultra II 480/512GB drive is priced low enough you can get it instead definitely get it.

Speaking of breaking into the next capacity bracket. I don't know if Amazon's pricing will be the same in your region, but... BUT. If you can wait long enough to save about $390 US dollars (I know that's a lot, but) check this out:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01LB05YOO/

It's not the fastest, but 2TB (!) ... From what I understand it's basically an OEM Crucial MX300 2TB drive.

This might not help Tiamat, but I thought others might like this! I'm seriously considering getting one if I can swing it after taxes hehe
 
Tiamat said:
I didt it on friday. They said that seagate owns that part of theyr company now... So i asked seagate. They told me to ask Samsung :banghead:
Click to expand...
lol! Can you give a list/links of preferred etailers from that area? Assuming that you're buying online instead of a local shop.

That way we can search around for SSD drives on websites you'd actually want to order from (and hopefully you trust with your money/debit/credit/bankcard/sold organs/etc =D)
 
Now that was a fun read.
 
Tiamat said:
Hey, i fount another option;


SANDISK ULTRA II SSD

Sandisk seems to have warranty in my country (while Samsumg and Crucial are not very clear about that here)...

The performance should be similar?



Actually, i found it too
Click to expand...

If you want to focus on quality in consumer SSDs there are two go-to SSD right now:

Samsung EVO
Crucial MX500

Ignore the rest or go entry level for a worthwhile price gap. For regular use they will all do just fine, most workloads hardly differ between SSDs in terms of performance and endurance of all recent drives is good enough. If you were to go entry level I would strongly suggest the BX300 above most others. Crucial brings a satisfying degree of quality and overall performance to each segment.
 
I remember a year or so ago the first life cycles of SSD's expired and sites including TPU did a longevity overview...
Samsung can out on top narrowly beating SanDisk and then with quite a bit of difference crucial followed....

I have never understood why people recommend Crucial when they are usually the same price as Samsung but don't last as long as SanDisk (WD now)...

I have owned 2 Crucial SSD's....
There wasn't anything special about them over any of the cheaper mid range drives... Absolutely nothing.

Currently I have an Inland Pro SSD and it really reminds me of crucial... Only difference between it and a Crucial SSD is about $45

I have 2 NVMe drives and 2 SSD's currently....

With my last build I ran out of room for drives..... I then gave away my crappy SSD's... Both were Crucial
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jmcslob said:
I remember a year or so ago the first life cycles of SSD's expired and sites including TPU did a longevity overview...
Samsung can out on top narrowly beating SanDisk and then with quite a bit of difference crucial followed....

I have never understood why people recommend Crucial when they are usually the same price as Samsung but don't last as long as SanDisk (WD now)...

I have owned 2 Crucial SSD's....
There wasn't anything special about them over any of the cheaper mid range drives... Absolutely nothing.

Currently I have an Inland Pro SSD and it really reminds me of crucial... Only difference between it and a Crucial SSD is about $45
Click to expand...

Crucial used to get recommendations because they implemented power safe caps that significantly reduce the risk of data in case of power loss - and the loss of sectors accompanying such scenarios and right now their MX500 beats the Samsung drives on price/perf by a good margin.
 
Vayra86 said:
Crucial used to get recommendations because they implemented power safe caps that significantly reduce the risk of data in case of power loss - and the loss of sectors accompanying such scenarios and right now their MX500 beats the Samsung drives on price/perf by a good margin.
Click to expand...
You'll have to forgive me but I heard this before with OCZ....
 
Vayra86 said:
OCZ, you mean the company that released the most horrible SSD controllers in history and went bust and got a new owner not too long after? Yeah I know :D

Crucial's stuff is real however
http://www.storagereview.com/crucial_mx100_ssd_review
Click to expand...
Again don't get me wrong Crucial is in the top 3 for SSD's imo but not before WD (SanDisk) and those are usually cheaper...
But a 5 year warranty is better than 3... And since you can only get 5 year warranty with WD bkack NVMe I regress...

I had an MX100 and MX300.... Both were good but neither was as good as anything else I had at the time... Even PNY drives were sightly better....ouch
 
Tiamat said:
@fullinfusion Do u know if the Crucial MX300 275GB M.2 - an m.2 model - can work with the GA-AB350M-DS2?

I found this (attach file) but i'm not sure, because the gigabyte spec site does not mention m.2 neither pci-e 3.0
Click to expand...
If you are considering the MX300, then go MX500. It is faster, has better sustained speeds, and is selling cheaper most places than the recently replaced MX300.
 
I went through this a few years ago and got a 300 series Crucial. Flawless after more than four years and I crunch numbers on WCG, daily 24/7. The drive is still 100% healthy.

The Crucial was significantly cheaper, than the Samsung, and has work great since day one.
 
I would agree the MX 500 is a deal today at 69 bucks and its one of the few that claims / offers power loss protection most don't . now the older MX 300 had hardware / caps not 100% sure what the mx 500 uses but its claimed

''Integrated Power Loss Immunity: Avoid unintended data loss when the power unexpectedly goes out. This built-in feature of our new NAND protects your data swiftly and efficiently, so if your system suddenly shuts down, you keep all your saved work.''

http://www.crucial.com/wcsstore/CrucialSAS/pdf/product-flyer/crucial-mx500-ssd-productflyer-en.pdf

mx300
The pads for the power loss protection capacitors are almost all populated
https://www.anandtech.com/show/10274/the-crucial-mx300-750gb-ssd-review-microns-3d-nand-arrives

may not be important to you or most but seems like something I would want at the near same price as those that don't even offer. mx 300 is getting hard to find and the 275 was about 85 bucks
 
Its really about what it's worth to you ... just don't try going to the boss and use a cost benefit analysis to try and make a case for adding SSDs to all of the office PCs cause ya will never be able to make it. Problem isn't that SSDs aren't faster ,,, problem i the user is the bottleneck. No legal secretary every typed an extra legal brief before 5:00 pm quiting time. NO CAD dude, ever completed a floor plan in AutoCAD 2D / 3D because he got an SSD. No gamer ever reach a further way point because they had an SSD. There are instances where SSDs actually do provide productivity increases, but that's not really a "desktop" thing. There are things ya can do on the desktop that prove the SSD is faster... like moving 40 GB of files... but as it's not an everyday thing, ...

However, my thought is if ya gonna get one, grab a Samsung Evo and be done with it. We have Evos and SSHDs in every build and cam boot off either ... I like to switch the boot drives and see if anyone notices :0 ... they don't.
 
'' just don't try going to the boss and use a cost benefit analysis to try and make a case for adding SSDs to all of the office PCs cause ya will never be able to make it.''

that would seem to make having a ssd that with some ''real'' power loss data protection a tad bit better . over ones that don't try to promote any at all ? that may help keep the boss looking cross eyed at you when a power issue at the office looses work due to that .

just seem a feature I would want in a ssd that similar in price and storage cap. it is flash memory after all in the end
 
Vayra86 said:
OCZ, you mean the company that released the most horrible SSD controllers in history and went bust and got a new owner not too long after? Yeah I know :D

Crucial's stuff is real however
http://www.storagereview.com/crucial_mx100_ssd_review
Click to expand...

They mostly used SandForce which wasn't theirs and Indelinx they bought later were pretty good actually. And so was SandForce. It just had its limitations and issues. Like most controllers of that time to be honest.
 
Hello guys! It has some time i've posted here, but i would like to tell the end of this questions, so i can help people that eventually get here seeking for the same doubts...

Actually i bought the Samsung 850 EVO model, and i'm very satisfied with it. On the other hand, i recently bought the KINGSTON A400 model for other PC, and i can say that, despite it's not as fast as the Samgung model, it's REALLY good. The difference for the daily use is not very significant...
 
My 2 850's have given me no issue's what so ever, if you do pick a Samsung i do believe you might have to keep the original box, not 100% sure on that though as i never had a issue with mine.

Toothless said:
Get the 850 EVO, worth every penny.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top