Quick purchase: which SSD should I get?

[Craig234]

I have an insurance credit to buy an SSD, over $58 up to $204.

I can spend more than that out of pocket and would do so if it's the right pick.

Short list is Samsung 850, but I don't know - there's 850 Pro, Intel, etc.

This is for a gaming system; reliability/durability is probably #1, noticeable speed is right up there, negligible speed differences I won't notice aren't so important.

850 500GB is $210, 1TB is $369. I'd like the 1TB but a little hard to justify because do I really need more than 500GB games loaded for SSD performance at the same time?

On the other hand, they do add up in space. Need to buy within a couple hours...

 

[CiPHER]

Crucial MX100 512GB. Cheaper than Samsung and just as good, if not better.

 

[Shmee]

850 Evo, has a 5 year warranty vs 3 for the crucial, IMO this makes the Evo the best choice.

 

[Elixer]

850 Evo, has a 5 year warranty vs 3 for the crucial, IMO this makes the Evo the best choice.

Until you have to deal with samsung's RMA process...
Crucial is much better in that regard.

 

[bbhaag]

^^^Or firmware that fails to keep older data in place so it transfers at a reasonable speed...snicker.

I like Crucial drives. Fast, reliable and US made if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Craig234]

Thanks for replies to far. Surprised no one suggests Intel.

Looks like Samsung 850 Pro 512GB $290, or Crucial M100 512GB $209.

The Samsung appears to have better performance and durability.

The price difference is out of pocket, but might be worth it.

 

[CiPHER]

Both the Samsung SSDs and the Crucial SSDs have very low failure rates. Additional warranty is always welcome but less important than say for harddrives. There is a reason harddrives get 1 year warranty and SSDs get 3-5.

 

[Cerb]

Thanks for replies to far. Surprised no one suggests Intel.

Too pricey for no practical gain. Micron (Crucial), Samsung, Sandisk, and Toshiba have all been more aggressive in their pricing than Intel; and both Crucial and Sandisk have good enough warranty service.

 

[hasu]

I have Crucial MX100 256GB and M550 512GB. Excellent SSDs. Highly recommended. For critical applications, I will consider only Crucial and Intel SSD or may be Sandisk. I never had issues with Sandisk either. I have had problems with Kingston and OCZ. OCZ Sata tab broke, and Kingston just died with no warning. I have had Samsung 830 64GB on a laptop that had stuttering and the performance was not as good as others.

 

[Craig234]

So, no votes for Samsung Pro 850? Looks like I'll try the Crucial. (Wait, the MX100 is $209, the MX550 is $330? You are recommending the MX100 right? What's this $180 BX100?)

Too bad I skipped black Friday deals. Thanks for opinions.

 

[Essence_of_War]

I understand why people like a longer warranty, I don't personally care about a warranty beyond a few years. I'm pretty sure that if my unit dies outside of year 3 or so, I just won't care enough to go through the RMA process to get a refurbished unit of the same capacity.

Thanks for replies to far. Surprised no one suggests Intel.

Intel's SSDs are solid, but they're typically at a bit higher price point than their performance would indicate. It's just not worth recommending them. Plus some people are still leery of SandForce controllers.

In addition to the MX100, for a gaming system I'd recommend these also:
Crucial BX100 500 GB @ $180
SanDisk Ultra II 480 GB @ $190
Crucial MX200 512 GB @ ~$210
Samsung 850 Evo 500 GB @ ~$210

The 850 Pro is a waste a money if you're going to be playing games and not doing some actual high-IO workload. At $300 you're nearly into the price range of non-pro 1TB drives. I would probably just get whatever is cheaper of those whenever you decide you're ready to buy.

 

[Hulk]

So, no votes for Samsung Pro 850? Looks like I'll try the Crucial. (Wait, the MX100 is $209, the MX550 is $330? You are recommending the MX100 right? What's this $180 BX100?)

Too bad I skipped black Friday deals. Thanks for opinions.

BX100 appears to be faster and cheaper.

 

[Carson Dyle]

So, no votes for Samsung Pro 850? Looks like I'll try the Crucial. (Wait, the MX100 is $209, the MX550 is $330? You are recommending the MX100 right? What's this $180 BX100?)

Too bad I skipped black Friday deals. Thanks for opinions.

Kinda sounds like you've already made up your mind and are just looking for validation.

 

[Cerb]

Generally, the MX100 or MX200. The MX200 seemingly is the M600 rebadged, IIRC.

Overall, the difference from the 850 Pro "down" some other SSDs is basically not noticeable, unless you find older SSDs that were fast for their time too slow. NVMe maturing, for very low latency access, is going to be the next meaningful speed increase (you can already see it in server SSDs from Intel and Samsung, but get your wallet out and dig deep!).

 

[CiPHER]

Do not pick the BX100; this uses a totally different controller.

The MX100 is the equivalent to M550, but with 16nm 128gbit NAND. The 512GB version of the MX100 is as fast as the more expensive M550 counterpart. The only remaining difference is longer endurance. But that is not very interesting since you will probably stop using the SSD before the endurance runs out.

The Crucial MX100 is a good quality and decently fast SSD for a much lower price. Samsung is overrated and overpriced. The MX100 gives you excellent quality/price ratio or 'value per buck'. The 128GB version is quite slow; only consider the 256/512GB versions; the 512GB version is almost SATA/600 capped so would be my recommendation. Really cheap SSD at the moment for quite alot of storage, performance, reliability and features.

Intel was great in the past. The X25-M introduced so many technologies that today SSDs still use (mapping tables, write redirection, offset correction, NCQ parallel I/O). But today Intel is focusing more on enterprise and less on consumer market when SSDs are concerned. But the PCIe NVMe line coming will also be for consumers if i remember correctly.

 

[Essence_of_War]

What's this $180 BX100?)

Crucial went from the MX100 to the MX200 and the BX100. They all seem to use the same MLC NAND, but the MX200 and BX100 use different controllers, and the MX200 comes with a couple of extra features, the most notable of which is probably the SLC cache for write acceleration. The SanDisk Ultra II has this also. The BX100 does not have this feature, and it also lacks a few other features that the MX200 comes with like hardware encryption support.

For day to day usage that is mostly loading games, the MX200 is more money for features that probably will not give you any tangible increase in performance. In a laptop, you might consider the MX200 over the BX100 because you can use it with bitlocker to do whole disk encryption, which is nice for your piece of mind if the laptop is stolen.

 

[VirtualLarry]

The BX100 is TLC.

I thought that the AT review stated it was MLC? It just uses a cheaper controller and no power back-up caps.

 

[schmuckley]

I vote for MX Crucial drive.
256GB should be enough...
I'm not comfortable with Samsung drives right now..
even though I have..3...alive.
1 is dead

 

[Essence_of_War]

I thought that the AT review stated it was MLC? It just uses a cheaper controller and no power back-up caps.

AT hasn't actually reviewed either yet, but Crucial says that both the MX200 and BX100 use the same type of 16nm synchronous MLC NAND.

 

[Hellhammer]

AT hasn't actually reviewed either yet, but Crucial says that both the MX200 and BX100 use the same type of 16nm synchronous MLC NAND.

That is correct. The cost savings in the BX100 come from a different controller (SMI 2246EN) and a lesser feature set (no hardware encryption or partial power loss protection).

 

[Essence_of_War]

That is correct. The cost savings in the BX100 come from a different controller (SMI 2246EN) and a lesser feature set (no hardware encryption or partial power loss protection).

Thanks for confirming!

And no SLC cache as well, right?

 

[Carson Dyle]

Why are the endurance specs on the BX100 so much lower than those of the MX200? Marketing?

http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/storage-ssd-comparison

** Edit **

Another thing... Why doesn't Crucial spec cache sizes for their SSDs? Can't find the info on their site.

 

[Essence_of_War]

Why are the endurance specs on the BX100 so much lower than those of the MX200? Marketing?

I think that's supposed to be the SLC cache on the MX200.

 

[Cerb]

I thought that the AT review stated it was MLC? It just uses a cheaper controller and no power back-up caps.

Yup, you're right. My mistake.

 

[Craig234]

Kinda sounds like you've already made up your mind and are just looking for validation.

Not at all actually.

If you look, the short list was from the thread. I hadn't hardly considered Crucial earlier.