• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Saw a good deal on a 500 gig BX100

P

Pwndenburg

Member
Is this a decent SSD? Newegg has a special today for a 500 gig BX100 for 169.99. That would work out to around $340 for a TB of nand storage. If its half decent that would be pretty sweet.
 
The BX100 is a great SSD.

It doesn't benchmark quite as well as the 850 Evo, 850 Pro, or Sandisk Extreme Pro, but in normal client workloads you won't see that performance difference anyway.
 
Essence_of_War said:
The BX100 is a great SSD.
Click to expand...

Heck yeah! The only time I buy the Samsung drives are when they are on sale for less than the Crucial drives. I have seen the Crucial 1TB SSDs on sale for as little as $299 (I'm sure they have been cheaper), so I don't know that I would buy two individual drives for the same price (unless they were going into two computers). Now that we have 2TB and 4TB SSDs on the scene, I expect to see some depreciation in the next few months.

It's hard to believe that my next PC build could actually be HDD-free!
 
Actually on the anand 2tb samsung review, the bx100 seem to bench better than the 850 evo.. pro is definitely another class of ssd
 
Puffnstuff said:
If finances allow for it my next build will be completely ssd's.
Click to expand...

I certainly thought about it. But I realized that for only $400 I could have 9TB of parity backed storage with traditional disks. I put the money I saved into a larger PCIe SSD. 1400MB/s sequential is quite nice.
 
Pwndenburg said:
Is this a decent SSD? Newegg has a special today for a 500 gig BX100 for 169.99. That would work out to around $340 for a TB of nand storage. If its half decent that would be pretty sweet.
Click to expand...

That's alright - don't rush though - BX100s have been bouncing around the $170 mark for a while, so this isn't a hot deal or anything.
 
Thank you all for letting me know that this wasn't as good as it seemed. I don't keep up day to day. It was kinda wow to me when I saw it that's the reason I came to get help from those who know!
 
Sabrewings said:
I certainly thought about it. But I realized that for only $400 I could have 9TB of parity backed storage with traditional disks. I put the money I saved into a larger PCIe SSD. 1400MB/s sequential is quite nice.
Click to expand...

For $500 you can have 8TB of 100% replicated storage with traditional disks. Yay 8TB HDDs.
 
dave_the_nerd said:
Aren't those the shingled ones that write at, like, 30MB/sec? *shudder*
Click to expand...

The speedtest on the 8TB Seagate drives is around 150 MB/s (read and write).

Yes the performance of the drive degrades a bit if used in a RAID environment. It also degrades if sectors are being overwritten due to SMR.

However you are obviously mischaracterizing the drive in your post.
 
I'm just trying to run a simple gaming rig, nothing more. It's a luxury I know, but I just one day would like to have 3TB of nand and no spinning disks. Right now, I'm not doing to bad at all and can't complain. I have a 500 gig 850 pro, 128 830, 4tb black.
 
Pwndenburg said:
I'm just trying to run a simple gaming rig, nothing more. It's a luxury I know, but I just one day would like to have 3TB of nand and no spinning disks. Right now, I'm not doing to bad at all and can't complain. I have a 500 gig 850 pro, 128 830, 4tb black.
Click to expand...

Very nice! I run a similar setup with Samsung 840 Pro (hmm, to be honest, I've forgotten which exact model I'm using in that machine) as the boot drive, then a 2TB spinner that's about 70% full of games and miscellany alongside some older SSDs (64-128GB) that came out during the X25M era (2008!). Games that need the fastest load times or very frequent disk access get placed on the SSDs while everything else sits on the HDD.
 
Nec_V20 said:
The speedtest on the 8TB Seagate drives is around 150 MB/s (read and write).

Yes the performance of the drive degrades a bit if used in a RAID environment. It also degrades if sectors are being overwritten due to SMR.

However you are obviously mischaracterizing the drive in your post.
Click to expand...

http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_archive_hdd_review_8tb

Speeds are good for write bursts, and the drive performs very well in read-heavy workloads, but start throwing lots of writes, and god-forbid, random writes, and performance gets torpedoed.

RAID rebuilds specifically are far worse than "degrades a bit". RAID rebuilds take a factor of 3 performance hit compared with HGST's He8 (19 hrs HGST He8 vs. 57 hrs Seagate SMR).
 
Essence_of_War said:
http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_archive_hdd_review_8tb

Speeds are good for write bursts, and the drive performs very well in read-heavy workloads, but start throwing lots of writes, and god-forbid, random writes, and performance gets torpedoed.

RAID rebuilds specifically are far worse than "degrades a bit". RAID rebuilds take a factor of 3 performance hit compared with HGST's He8 (19 hrs HGST He8 vs. 57 hrs Seagate SMR).
Click to expand...

It's characterised and named as an archive drive.
 
Wouldn't the Crucial MX200 be better than the BX100 for only ~$10 more? If I remember there wasn't a huge difference between them, but seems the prices now are very close.
 
duragezic said:
Wouldn't the Crucial MX200 be better than the BX100 for only ~$10 more? If I remember there wasn't a huge difference between them, but seems the prices now are very close.
Click to expand...
In the Anandtech review, it wasn't a big difference - and there were benchmarks where the BX100 actually was faster.

Although it did have a couple features the BX100 didn't.

But for a home desktop client, I don't think I'd even consider it worth $10 more. That, like, totally a six pack of the good beer.
 
dave_the_nerd said:
In the Anandtech review, it wasn't a big difference - and there were benchmarks where the BX100 actually was faster.

Although it did have a couple features the BX100 didn't.

But for a home desktop client, I don't think I'd even consider it worth $10 more. That, like, totally a six pack of the good beer.
Click to expand...
Hah, if you put it like that I have to agree!
 
The only real differnece in home desktop workloads is TCG Opal support and a much higher endurance rating for the MX200. If you need TCG, or value it at $10+, then the MX200 makes sense, if you don't, I'd pick the beer 😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top