Suggestions for a ~500GB SSD *update* New MX300 installed!

[Charlie98]

RE: Desk in sig below... note, I'm still running Z68, so no M.2, etc

Need to replace the LiteOn M6s 256GB SSD with a ~500GB, but have been out of the tech loop for about a year. I have 3 Intel 535's running in 3 customer rigs and they have performed very, very well, but the 535 is an older MLC design and wonder how relevant it is stacked against the newer MLC and TLC SSDs. It's for my primary PC, which is my business machine also... reliability is paramount.

At this point the 535 still heads the list... the 540s, BX200, and any Samsung is OUT (yes, I said Samsung.) I'm wondering about the MX300 (the price sure looks good, but it's TLC...) or one of the other brands. I don't know enough about TLC, and if it's matured enough to be as reliable as MLC (which, I suppose, depends on the controller, and component quality...) Or do I dump the money on the Intel S3500 and get data protection?

Price doesn't bother me... I'm not going to fuss over a difference of $5 or something, and I'm willing to spend the money on something other than a base model consumer drive (I almost always have.) Dropping ~$200 on a new SSD is fine, the $500 for the S3500 is a bit of a stretch, however. I'm not going to cry over a difference of capacity, either.

 

[lehtv]

Crucial MX300 seems to offer really good value, it's based on micron's new 3D TLC. 850 EVO is still faster, but also much more expensive, while the MX300 is faster than basically any other TLC drive apart from 850 EVO.

Here's a userbench comparison of MX300 vs Intel 525. http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Crucial-MX300-525GB-vs-Intel-535-Series-480GB/3643vsm29709

 

[Charlie98]

Crucial MX300 seems to offer really good value, it's based on micron's new 3D TLC. 850 EVO is still faster, but also much more expensive, while the MX300 is faster than basically any other TLC drive apart from 850 EVO.

Here's a userbench comparison of MX300 vs Intel 525. http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Crucial-MX300-525GB-vs-Intel-535-Series-480GB/3643vsm29709

I'm actually quite curious about the MX300, I have a M550 in my game rig and it's been a pretty decent drive (vs the disappointing M500 in my HTPC, and I understand any of those is not an apples to apples compare. ) My big question is the maturity of TLC nand, the MX300 almost looks too good to be true vs something like the comparatively priced Intel 540s, which they really panned in the Anand bench.

 

[lehtv]

My big question is the maturity of TLC nand, the MX300 almost looks too good to be true vs something like the comparatively priced Intel 540s, which they really panned in the Anand bench.

Well, I don't really know about TLC's maturity - not sure I understand the concern, even. Has reliability been any sort of issue, aside from some firmware hiccups that then got fixed (like with 840 EVO)? I remember the early days with SandForce controllers that got a bad reputation, was it due to OCZ or due to something wrong with the controllers themselves, don't know... but I don't see anything like that with TLC drives. For consumer use, TLC has always been fine, as long as you're happy with the performance you get.

If it's endurance that worries you:
- MX300 525GB is rated for 160TB writes
- 850 EVO 500GB is rated for 150TB
- even the el cheapo planar TLC drive ADATA SP550 boasts 180TB ...?
- couldn't find TB rating for Intel 535, but MTBF is advertised at 1.5 million hours

Of course, MLC drives tend to have higher endurance, but all of these numbers are pretty massive for typical consumer use. My 850 EVO 500GB (used for OS, programs, games) has just 6.4TB written on it in during 10,000 power-on hours (416 days), so I expect it to last around 25 more years.

Comparing MX300 and Intel 535, I'd make two points:
- Intel offers 5 year warranty which inflates the price
- MX300 uses an SLC-like cache which improves performance compared to other TLC and even many MLC based drives, and at a low cost

 

[Charlie98]

No, I'm aware of the early SF controller problems (My first SSD was an OCZ Agility3!) and things like the 840Evo FW issue. In fact, I've sworn off Samsung SSD's because of the abysmal RMA process I went through with my 840Pro, which failed in less than a year. Come to think of it, that's probably where my 'TLC maturity' question stems from... the Evo problem. The 5-year Intel warranty is nice, but I don't think it likely I'll see that... I seem to turn over my SSD's about every 2-3 years regardless, as my need for capacity grows.

One of the Intel 128GB 535's I have out has over 20K hours on it, but only around 7TB of writes. I don't know the stats on my LiteOn, it was a Dell pull and does not provide any SMART data.

Thanks, Lehtv! Feeling better about pulling the trigger on the MX300...

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I'm not personally sold on non-3D TLC. I generally steer people towards MLC BX100 act-alikes like the PNY CS2111 or the Mushkin Reactor 1TB. (Same controller and in some cases the same NAND.)

But the MX300 does look promising.

 

[Elixer]

The problem with TLC is, and always will be, that it is much more complicated than MLC firmware.
The longevity issue isn't really that much of a concern, but, the reliability issue is the big question.
The 3D NAND has had 0 reliability articles/long term tests that I can find, could be better than planar, or not, we just don't know.

Anyway, I am still strongly in the MLC camp (for OS or more important data), until we actually have some studies done for long term testing of 3D NAND. Brand don't matter that much, I had Samsung, Crucial, and others all fail on me.

I still would use TLC for data that don't matter that much though. (Games, movies, that kind of stuff).

I am really unhappy on how a Crucial device (MLC) can just encrypt itself, requiring a PSID reset, and Crucial's support could care less on why it happened just to do a PSID reset, and go away.

 

[Charlie98]

I'm not personally sold on non-3D TLC.

I still would use TLC for data that don't matter that much though.

Well... and that's sort of my concern... I'm so behind on tech I didn't realize there was a significant difference between TLC and 3D TLC, and how new the 3D stuff is. My data DOES matter, and I don't like being a guinea pig (and, no, I'm not saying I can isolate myself from any given failure... my 840Pro proved that to me.)

 

[PliotronX]

I was pretty hesitant with the 850 Evo at first but its proven to be a reliable drive with some tough to beat scores even without the magician caching business. Adata is just coming out with their 3D TLC line as well. Before we know it, all of the midgrade SSDs will be made with it. Planar TLC is the bane of SSDs but MLC looks like its on the way out unfortunately.

 

[coercitiv]

Well... and that's sort of my concern... I'm so behind on tech I didn't realize there was a significant difference between TLC and 3D TLC, and how new the 3D stuff is. My data DOES matter, and I don't like being a guinea pig (and, no, I'm not saying I can isolate myself from any given failure... my 840Pro proved that to me.)

Samsung introduced 3D NAND more than 2 years ago, since then they have moved on to their second generation tech. Every information we have on the subject points towards a more robust technology, with less weak points than planar. In this field tech changes so quickly everybody is a guinea pig. Best advice for (storage) safety at the moment is to not buy a Note 7.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Well... and that's sort of my concern... I'm so behind on tech I didn't realize there was a significant difference between TLC and 3D TLC, and how new the 3D stuff is. My data DOES matter, and I don't like being a guinea pig (and, no, I'm not saying I can isolate myself from any given failure... my 840Pro proved that to me.)

Even with MLC, the smaller the node size (40nm, 32nm, on down to 16 or 14nm) the lower the performance tended to be and the more work the controller had to do to "fake" being fast.

MLC "works" at the smaller node sizes, though - adding TLC tech only made the issues more complex, and even with all the engineers can do to make it work, combining planar NAND with TLC kinda tips it over into "meh, this sucks" territory.

3D NAND is fabbed at a much larger transistor size (iirc, it's 40 or 45nm for first-gen Samsung like the 850EVO) so it's immune to most of the crappy behavior, simply by virtue of being appropriately more primitive.

 

[Charlie98]

Even with MLC, the smaller the node size (40nm, 32nm, on down to 16 or 14nm) the lower the performance tended to be and the more work the controller had to do to "fake" being fast.

3D NAND is fabbed at a much larger transistor size (iirc, it's 40 or 45nm for first-gen Samsung like the 850EVO) so it's immune to most of the crappy behavior, simply by virtue of being appropriately more primitive.

Well... and that's what I mean. I have (still have, setting idle on a shelf, 'cause I don't trust it...) a 256GB 840Pro... and I remember the 'magic show' of Magician to pump up the benchmark numbers. I don't give a flip about benches, I care about real-world performance and reliability.

In this field tech changes so quickly everybody is a guinea pig.

I'm perfectly comfortable with older tech... I don't have to have bleeding edge components. Have you looked at my rigs??? I'm not saying going back to SATA II is fine, but something proven... like the Intel 535... might be my best answer. There is a compelling argument for something 'better,' certainly, which is why I'm here.

 

[coercitiv]

I'm not saying going back to SATA II is fine, but something proven... like the Intel 535... might be my best answer.

Intel 535 was launched after 850 Pro with 3D NAND hit the market and is using 16nm planar, which means quite a bit of effort to keep data in good condition. So yes, guinea pig mode is definitely active with that model as well.

If you want something proven look at S3500 with 20nm MLC or even better S3700 with 25nm High Endurance MLC. Opting out of the guinea pig program might prove quite expensive though.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Well... and that's what I mean. I have (still have, setting idle on a shelf, 'cause I don't trust it...) a 256GB 840Pro... and I remember the 'magic show' of Magician to pump up the benchmark numbers. I don't give a flip about benches, I care about real-world performance and reliability.

I'm not talking about that. Magician was just using a really big Ram cache.

I mean stuff going on inside the SSD itself, like SLC write tiering. It actually works fine irl. It's just that there's a performance dropoff when you really use the SSD hard and run out of cache room.

 

[Charlie98]

Intel 535 was launched after 850 Pro with 3D NAND hit the market and is using 16nm planar, which means quite a bit of effort to keep data in good condition. So yes, guinea pig mode is definitely active with that model as well.

If you want something proven look at S3500 with 20nm MLC or even better S3700 with 25nm High Endurance MLC. Opting out of the guinea pig program might prove quite expensive though.

You know... you are correct. I'm mixing up my numbers... The original Intel I have in service is a 530, not the 535. *scratches head* Duh.

 

[Shmee]

Any of the above choices should be fine, I would just make sure you have backups. Only way to be sure.

 

[Charlie98]

Any of the above choices should be fine, I would just make sure you have backups. Only way to be sure.

Oh, yea. I learned that with my 840Pro. I'm a backup madman...

 

[Charlie98]

*Lightbulb goes off in head*

I wonder if I ought to just swap the M550 out of my GAME rig, and put the MX300 in there... there is nothing critical on my GAME rig, so a drive loss would be no big deal.

 

[Charlie98]

Well... that's what I did: Pulled the M550 out of the GAME rig and swapped it into the desktop, and I just installed a new MX300 into the non-critical GAME rig. Time will tell!

If anyone wants me to run any specific test, let me know... granted, my system is a bit of a dinosaur.

 

[BSim500]

Well... that's what I did: Pulled the M550 out of the GAME rig and swapped it into the desktop, and I just installed a new MX300 into the non-critical GAME rig. Time will tell!

If anyone wants me to run any specific test, let me know... granted, my system is a bit of a dinosaur.

If you don't mind me asking Charlie, what does the speed test chart of your MX300 look like in SSDReadSpeedTester after 7-8 weeks? Crucial's first attempt at TLC (BX200) along with the Samsung 840's showed showdowns after 8 weeks or so, presumably due to the same TLC + 16nm = voltage drift issue that plagued the Samsung 840's. Just wondering if this MX300 has fixed this stuff? Thanks.

 

[Charlie98]

If you don't mind me asking Charlie, what does the speed test chart of your MX300 look like in SSDReadSpeedTester after 7-8 weeks? Crucial's first attempt at TLC (BX200) along with the Samsung 840's showed showdowns after 8 weeks or so, presumably due to the same TLC + 16nm = voltage drift issue that plagued the Samsung 840's. Just wondering if this MX300 has fixed this stuff? Thanks.

I've never used that utility before, so I'm not sure if this is what you wanted... let me know if you need a different aspect.

 

[BSim500]

I've never used that utility before, so I'm not sure if this is what you wanted... let me know if you need a different aspect.

Yeah that's exactly it, thanks. Some older 16nm TLC drives like the Samsung 840 EVO's / BX200's slowed down after a few weeks. It looks like the Crucial MX300's compensate for that. Thanks very much for the response!