Crucial MX100 512gig or Samsung 840 EVO 500gig?

[XiandreX]

I am going back and forth trying to decide which to get. Is the Samsung worth the price premium? I don't mind paying the extra amount if I will notice a difference. I play lots of games, watch movies, browser etc.
Both seem to have solid reliability.

I hear people cite Rapid for Samsung and then I have heard Rapid makes it seem its copying files at the rates when in fact its not completely accurate. 😕

 

[jjmIII]

I don't mind paying the extra amount if I will notice a difference?

You won't notice any difference between modern SSD's....or any SSD in general. I've had G.Skill, Intel, and Kingstons of all ages, and price points. Maybe it's just me, but I can't tell. 😳

 

[CakeMonster]

You certainly won't notice.

RAPID is just a caching mechanism that is more aggressive than the one Windows uses. It writes large chunks to RAM before writing them to the disk later on, presumably at a point when the disk is not in need of accessing. But the data will need to be written at some point. So copying a file to somewhere to grab that data for physical transport will gain nothing from RAPID as you will have to wait.

I like RAPID and caching in general, its just that its actual mechanism of working seems to fly over lots of people's head causing them to attribute all kinds of mistaken qualities to it.

Most benchmarks of RAPID are meaningless because the benchmarks are designed to write to the disk and NOT use the Windows cache. Meaning that when RAPID is enabled will look absurdly much faster because it fools the benchmarks. Yet some people keep posting these benchmarks again and again apparently not realizing this.

 

[XiandreX]

You certainly won't notice.

RAPID is just a caching mechanism that is more aggressive than the one Windows uses. It writes large chunks to RAM before writing them to the disk later on, presumably at a point when the disk is not in need of accessing. But the data will need to be written at some point. So copying a file to somewhere to grab that data for physical transport will gain nothing from RAPID as you will have to wait.

I like RAPID and caching in general, its just that its actual mechanism of working seems to fly over lots of people's head causing them to attribute all kinds of mistaken qualities to it.

Most benchmarks of RAPID are meaningless because the benchmarks are designed to write to the disk and NOT use the Windows cache. Meaning that when RAPID is enabled will look absurdly much faster because it fools the benchmarks. Yet some people keep posting these benchmarks again and again apparently not realizing this.

That's what I understood about Rapid and the discussions on it. I just needed someone to clarify.

 

[Berryracer]

I have had both the Samsung 84 EVO 1TB and the Samsung 840 PRO 512 GB. The EVO is great when you first buy it, give it a week and you will start seeing its performance go down so badly to unacceptable levels. That is due to how TLC NAND works. that's why after having three 1TB EVOs before I sold two of them and got two 840 PRO 512 GB instead. They are much faster and I feel my system snappier + their performance is consistent and is the same everytime.

The 840 PRO series also offers you 5 year warranty vs. the EVOs 3 year warranty since Samsung cannot guarantee that TLC NAND crapy SSD. I would never buy another EVO if you ask me and that's due to personal experience, forget about all those benchmarks online and forget about RAPID. Truth is, when you copy something using RAPID, yes, it will finish much much faster. But try shutting your computer down the same second the copy is done. then start the computer again, you will find that the copy was corrputed because RAPID is a big marketing lie, even though it shows you that it finished copying, it it really still working in the background and trying to complete the copy process so don't let RAPID lie to you or be a deciding factor.

If I were you, my choice would be either the 840 PRO or the Crucial MX100 but definitely NOT the EVO

If price was not an issue, get the 840 PRO for the absolute best performance, If price was an issue, then the Crucial MX100 is a very respectable SSD and offers consistent performance albeit a bit slower. but you will only notice it in benchmarks not in real life.

From a personal point though, I prefer Samsung drives because I had had very good experience in them and they are one of the most reliable (excluding the EVO)

 

[Topweasel]

That's what I understood about Rapid and the discussions on it. I just needed someone to clarify.

Also keep in mind that the EVO makes up for TLC slowness by using a build up of SLC cells to act as a buffer for the writes.

I bring that up because between the SLC buffer (6GB) and the Rapid buffer (1GB) and 512MB cache you can end up with 7.5GB of uncommitted data in a power outage.

The MX100 has power off protection and should be able to commit all cached data during a power off.

In a laptop or gaming PC the EVO is a great drive. But in the end between price, more than good enough performance, and not playing tons of games with your data to boast the performance numbers it gets. I am a much bigger fan of the MX100.

 

[CakeMonster]

I have had both the Samsung 84 EVO 1TB and the Samsung 840 PRO 512 GB. The EVO is great when you first buy it, give it a week and you will start seeing its performance go down so badly to unacceptable levels. That is due to how TLC NAND works. that's why after having three 1TB EVOs before I sold two of them and got two 840 PRO 512 GB instead. They are much faster and I feel my system snappier + their performance is consistent and is the same everytime.

I can guarantee you won't notice this in a regular user environment.

The 840 PRO series also offers you 5 year warranty vs. the EVOs 3 year warranty since Samsung cannot guarantee that TLC NAND crapy SSD.

You had the 840 EVO 1Tb. It will last you 63 years with 50GiB written a day which is frankly an absurd amount for even most enthusiasts on AT. "Crappy"?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7173/...w-120gb-250gb-500gb-750gb-1tb-models-tested/3

I would never buy another EVO if you ask me and that's due to personal experience, forget about all those benchmarks online and forget about RAPID. Truth is, when you copy something using RAPID, yes, it will finish much much faster. But try shutting your computer down the same second the copy is done. then start the computer again, you will find that the copy was corrputed because RAPID is a big marketing lie, even though it shows you that it finished copying, it it really still working in the background and trying to complete the copy process so don't let RAPID lie to you or be a deciding factor.

Your failing to understand the mechanics of its features is not a "marketing lie".

 

[CakeMonster]

I bring that up because between the SLC buffer (6GB) and the Rapid buffer (1GB) and 512MB cache you can end up with 7.5GB of uncommitted data in a power outage.

I doubt that there is no overlap of data in those buffers, but yeah there is definitely a risk. But with the exception of Sandforce pretty much any SSD these days have some kind of DRAM and/or buffer. Windows write caching will also always pose a risk when it comes to unexpected power loss.

Disclaimer: I'm too lazy to have read up on exactly how Windows and RAPID delay writing so I won't make guesses to the added risk.

However in most copy scenarios, unless there is other simultaneous heavy write activity, there is little reason for the SSD to wait with actually writing to disk. When copying to the SSD the sources are practically always slower so you could in theory write to the SSD from several sources at the same time and it would still be fast enough even without RAPID. The only cases I can see with any risk of delayed writes are when writing large amounts from system RAM or another faster SSD.

 

[XiandreX]

I have had both the Samsung 84 EVO 1TB and the Samsung 840 PRO 512 GB. The EVO is great when you first buy it, give it a week and you will start seeing its performance go down so badly to unacceptable levels. That is due to how TLC NAND works. that's why after having three 1TB EVOs before I sold two of them and got two 840 PRO 512 GB instead. They are much faster and I feel my system snappier + their performance is consistent and is the same everytime.

The 840 PRO series also offers you 5 year warranty vs. the EVOs 3 year warranty since Samsung cannot guarantee that TLC NAND crapy SSD. I would never buy another EVO if you ask me and that's due to personal experience, forget about all those benchmarks online and forget about RAPID. Truth is, when you copy something using RAPID, yes, it will finish much much faster. But try shutting your computer down the same second the copy is done. then start the computer again, you will find that the copy was corrputed because RAPID is a big marketing lie, even though it shows you that it finished copying, it it really still working in the background and trying to complete the copy process so don't let RAPID lie to you or be a deciding factor.

If I were you, my choice would be either the 840 PRO or the Crucial MX100 but definitely NOT the EVO

If price was not an issue, get the 840 PRO for the absolute best performance, If price was an issue, then the Crucial MX100 is a very respectable SSD and offers consistent performance albeit a bit slower. but you will only notice it in benchmarks not in real life.

From a personal point though, I prefer Samsung drives because I had had very good experience in them and they are one of the most reliable (excluding the EVO)

The final nail in the coffin so to speak for my decision lay in the international warranty. Crucial was quick to respond and confirm I can return the drive
to the UK if something happens.
Samsung on the other hand was not so helpful. I spoke to online chat trying to get a definitive answer and they kept on pushing me to speak to Total
tech solutions. They said they were not trained in SSD warranties.
I finally got a response from Total tech solutions saying that I would need to contact Samsung in the US if an issue arose.
I really expected more from Samsung and this lack of assistance is bothersome.

 

[Topweasel]

I doubt that there is no overlap of data in those buffers, but yeah there is definitely a risk. But with the exception of Sandforce pretty much any SSD these days have some kind of DRAM and/or buffer. Windows write caching will also always pose a risk when it comes to unexpected power loss.

Disclaimer: I'm too lazy to have read up on exactly how Windows and RAPID delay writing so I won't make guesses to the added risk.

However in most copy scenarios, unless there is other simultaneous heavy write activity, there is little reason for the SSD to wait with actually writing to disk. When copying to the SSD the sources are practically always slower so you could in theory write to the SSD from several sources at the same time and it would still be fast enough even without RAPID. The only cases I can see with any risk of delayed writes are when writing large amounts from system RAM or another faster SSD.

I am not saying the risk is that great or that for most people that the non committed information is that important. The MX100 has capacitors for holding enough energy to commit its dram buffer to nand in the case of a power outage. One companies drive goes the extra step to protect our data all the way up to the last second. The Samsung whether it actually matters intentionally uses our data in a precarious position just to be able to use weaker Nand. Yet costs more money. Its not a practice I want to commend or support.