512gb SSD $196 Ship Crucial MX100, Good SSD 500gb sub 200 dollars

[Roland00Address]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820148821

Price $214.99
Shipping $0.99
If you enter the code MASTERPASS23 and purchase with a mastercard you can get up to $20 dollars off
Final Price $195.98

10% Off Orders When You Use Your MasterPass from MasterCard
MASTERPASS23
Save up to $20 off. Use promo code at checkout. Offer valid while funds last.
Expires on 07/13/2014 at 11:59 pm

Note this is a "budget" drive it is not the fastest drive out there. That said it is from a reliable SSD oem (Crucial) and it gives you 85% to 95% the performance of the 480gb Intel 530 drive. The Intel 530 is the 2nd gen sandforce based drive and its 480gb its price on newegg is $271 so $251 after coupon. This 730 is the new 3rd generation in house controller designed for enterprise use and its $400 so $380 after coupon.

After a point though ssds are already fast enough for most usage cases and price is the biggest concern though

 

[tasukete]

After a point though ssds are already fast enough for most usage cases and price is the biggest concert though

Price... and reliability. The MX100 has capacitors for power loss protection. I'll take that any day. The MX100 is already fast enough to run a small company. (Not big enough, but fast enough.

 

[Kaido]

Ah, beat me to it. I just got a 512GB MX100 for my Sager laptop & it is a BEAST. No issues so far!

 

[Engineer]

Price dropped another $2 today. Down to $192.99 after coupon now and free Shoprunner shipping.

 

[marvdmartian]

Man, seems like it wasn't so long ago, people would brag about buying a hard drive for under $1/GB.

 

[ctk1981]

Man, seems like it wasn't so long ago, people would brag about buying a hard drive for under $1/GB.

Well I hopped on the 4TB WD Red deal posted here a couple hours ago..140 with free shipping......so wahoo, under a dollar a gig!

 

[qliveur]

Since it's the 512GB version, this drive may not be as slow as some people think.

Here's how it stacks up against the 512GB Samsung 840 Pro. Pretty damned impressive for budget drive.

 

[SimMike2]

1/2 terabyte. Now we are talking.

 

[marvdmartian]

Well I hopped on the 4TB WD Red deal posted here a couple hours ago..140 with free shipping......so wahoo, under a dollar a gig!

My first build, back in 2001, I scored an 80GB Western Digital drive, and paid $80 for it. :\

 

[Spackle]

Received mine today, makes a nice Steam library drive. Thanks OP!

 

[Engineer]

My first build, back in 2001, I scored an 80GB Western Digital drive, and paid $80 for it. :\

LOL, my first drive was in the Spring of 1988. It was a Seagate 20MB (Megabyte) MFM drive with a 4 to 1 interleave (4 spins to read one track). It cost $379. You guys are spoiled!

 

[MagickMan]

Price... and reliability. The MX100 has capacitors for power loss protection. I'll take that any day. The MX100 is already fast enough to run a small company. (Not big enough, but fast enough.

Yep, which is why I still insist on Intel drives. I don't care if they're marginally slower, in my main PC I'm still using a X25-M G2 RAID 0 array (160GB x3) because they're rated for 16 more years. They sure as hell don't feel sluggish to me.

 

[Samus]

Yep, which is why I still insist on Intel drives. I don't care if they're marginally slower, in my main PC I'm still using a X25-M G2 RAID 0 array (160GB x3) because they're rated for 16 more years. They sure as hell don't feel sluggish to me.

I upgraded from my SSD320 (X25-M v3) to a Samsung 840 Pro about a year ago.

Let me tell you that there is a noticeable difference in speed. The SSD320 is definitely sluggish in comparison, about half the speed (SATA 2.0 limited.)

But I get your point, too. I ran the SSD320 for nearly 3 years without a single issue. With that in mind, though, they only make sense in business machines where the performance isn't as important. They just don't make sense anymore, because for the most part, there are many drives now that are nearly as reliable that cost less and are much faster.

Those facts don't stop me from hopping on eBay and picking up used 160GB models for $70/ea, though, simply for business machines. I even plunked down $300 on a 600GB model awhile back for a clients server.

Of course now, with the MX100, all of this is irrelevant and it will be my go to drive. Crucial drives are equally as reliable as Intel's, because for the most part, they are engineered with the same interests in mind.

 

[Medikit]

LOL, my first drive was in the Spring of 1988. It was a Seagate 20MB (Megabyte) MFM drive with a 4 to 1 interleave (4 spins to read one track). It cost $379. You guys are spoiled!

That is $762.16 adjusted for inflation.

 

[tasukete]

LOL, my first drive was in the Spring of 1988. It was a Seagate 20MB (Megabyte) MFM drive with a 4 to 1 interleave (4 spins to read one track). It cost $379. You guys are spoiled!

I have you beat by 3 years. In 1985 I had two, count 'em, two 360-KILOBYTE floppy drives. Suddenly I kinda wish I could go back and write a RAID-0 floppy driver for my 11-year-old self...

I think I actually saw that 20MB drive around 1988. It made my head spin seeing twenty million bytes free.

But that's nothing. Where are the punch card folks to show us how spoiled we really are?

 

[Engineer]

I have you beat by 3 years. In 1985 I had two, count 'em, two 360-KILOBYTE floppy drives. Suddenly I kinda wish I could go back and write a RAID-0 floppy driver for my 11-year-old self...

I think I actually saw that 20MB drive around 1988. It made my head spin seeing twenty million bytes free.

But that's nothing. Where are the punch card folks to show us how spoiled we really are?

Never said that was my first drive, just my first HD!

My dad has a TRS-80 Model 4 with 2 of those drives. I took the one from my Tandy Color Computer (CoCo) and connected it via Ribbon cable to the Model 4 to make it 3 drives. No punch cards (my boss did that in school) but I did have a cassette recorder for data on the CoCo. This was all in the Fall of 1983 / Spring of 1984.

Of course, had a 300 baud modem at that time too! D:

 

[MagickMan]

I upgraded from my SSD320 (X25-M v3) to a Samsung 840 Pro about a year ago.

Let me tell you that there is a noticeable difference in speed. The SSD320 is definitely sluggish in comparison, about half the speed (SATA 2.0 limited.)

But I get your point, too. I ran the SSD320 for nearly 3 years without a single issue. With that in mind, though, they only make sense in business machines where the performance isn't as important. They just don't make sense anymore, because for the most part, there are many drives now that are nearly as reliable that cost less and are much faster.

Those facts don't stop me from hopping on eBay and picking up used 160GB models for $70/ea, though, simply for business machines. I even plunked down $300 on a 600GB model awhile back for a clients server.

Of course now, with the MX100, all of this is irrelevant and it will be my go to drive. Crucial drives are equally as reliable as Intel's, because for the most part, they are engineered with the same interests in mind.

Sorry, I tried a pair of Samsung 840 Pros in RAID 0 and couldn't tell much of a real world difference at all, the only thing that shot upwards were benchmarks. So I went back to the more reliable 34nm Intel drives. SATA-II is 300MB /sec per channel, and my 3 drives when striped can push nearly 900MB /sec and 94,000 iops on reads. That's plenty enough for me.

 

[Roland00Address]

When people are arguing reliability vs more speed, all that is going in my head is this

Tim Taylor: Moarrrrr Power!
The Studio Audience egging him on: MORE POWER!
Tim Taylor starts something beautiful while Al tries to tell him its a bad idea
30 seconds later something bad happens
Al has a smirk on his face.

-----

Hey it probably going to be fine, but my luck with technology something always breaks. That is why I stick with intel, crucial, and samsung for ssds but prefer intel the best given a similarity in price (or a small markup).

 

[Samus]

Yes, but since when are Samsung SSD's unreliable? They don't have as long as a track record as Intel's X25-M (which I agree, is the most reliable drive based on failures over time, which I have seen ZERO) but consider Samsung has outshipped Intel in SSD's for years, supplying OEM drives for Dell, Apple and others, with very few legitimate failures. They also have a more sophisticated NAND fab than Micron, and their controller has proven itself very reliable. The onboard memory is used to cache the indirection table and stores no user data.

And RAID on X25-M's losses trim and disabled most of the Intel SSD Toolbox such as manual garbage collection and indirection table defragmentation. These are potential reliability and performance issues. Any X25 I've ever heard of failing was in RAID.

What I'm trying to say is you're sticking with the X58-chipset of SSD's. It's damn good and was ahead of its time, but it's antiquated. Newer chipsets, drives, and CPU's just offer more benefit even if the speed increase is ever so slight. They have native USB 3.0, use less power, produce less heat, have more instruction support, drive encryption, power loss capacitors, SATA 6Gbps, UEFI, ITX form factors, 1.3v LPDIMM support, etc.

In other words, its like comparing a car from 2008 to a car from 2012. 4 years means a lot in any industry, even the auto industry. The newer car will be safer and more efficient, but only time will tell about its reliability. But I wouldn't say as a rule of thumb that newer cars are less reliable than older cars. If history has taught us anything, its that cars just get more and more reliable over time.

 

[Elixer]

Yes, but since when are Samsung SSD's unreliable? They don't have as long as a track record as Intel's X25-M (which I agree, is the most reliable drive based on failures over time, which I have seen ZERO) but consider Samsung has outshipped Intel in SSD's for years, supplying OEM drives for Dell, Apple and others, with very few legitimate failures. They also have a more sophisticated NAND fab than Micron, and their controller has proven itself very reliable. The onboard memory is used to cache the indirection table and stores no user data.

Not quite right, sammy & toshiba pretty much split the OEM shipments, so you can't come to any conclusions besides that they are both big players in the SSD game.
Does that mean sammy & toshiba is better than Y ? No, it just means they are 'reliable enough' for the large OEMs. It sure does pay if you make your own NAND + have a in house controller.
That said, I have had failures from both sammy & toshiba, as well as lots of other people, then again, the same can be said for any brand.

Bottom line is, this is a very good price for a 512GB MX100.

 

[MagickMan]

And RAID on X25-M's losses trim and disabled most of the Intel SSD Toolbox such as manual garbage collection and indirection table defragmentation. These are potential reliability and performance issues. Any X25 I've ever heard of failing was in RAID.

That's incorrect. I have trim running and manual garbage collection works great under SSD Toolbox 3.2.1 on my RAID-0 setup (just ran it), I'm not sure where that info came from.

 

[qliveur]

Last I checked, trim doesn't work with RAID on any chipset older than 7-series.

 

[Engineer]

Last I checked, trim doesn't work with RAID on any chipset older than 7-series.

With modified BIOS it does (P67 at least...not sure of others).

 

[qliveur]

Fernando?

 

[Chiropteran]

Alternatively, checkout with bitcoin and save 10%.

http://promotions.newegg.com/nepro/...coin-Promotion-_-NA-_-NA-_-NA&nm_mc=ExtBanner

$21.49 saved by paying with bitcoin.