# Micron 1100 1TB. Good drive ?



## cucker tarlson (Nov 3, 2018)

I found Micron 1100 1TB SSD selling at 485PLN. Very good price. For comparison MX500 1TB is 650PLN here. Is it a good drive ? I heard it's a pretty good budget one. It'll be for games.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Nov 3, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> I found Micron 1100 1TB SSD selling at 485PLN. Very good price. For comparison MX500 1TB is 650PLN here. Is it a good drive ? I heard it's a pretty good budget one. It'll be for games.


Seems like a good drive. That's a lot of cash for only 1TB though. I personally prefer a more cost effective solution. I've got a 360GB SSD of the main OS and installed programs/games with a 1TB WD 7200RPM HDD and a couple of large external drives for mass storage. So unless you can easily afford such a drive, you'll save yourself a lot of money that you can put into a RAM upgrade. Or you can just stay with the setup you have in your specs, which are really very good actually and just upgrade your RAM.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 3, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> I found Micron 1100 1TB SSD selling at 485PLN. Very good price. For comparison MX500 1TB is 650PLN here. Is it a good drive ? I heard it's a pretty good budget one. It'll be for games.



From what I've seen the Micron 1100 is just the OEM version of the MX300, the generation before the MX500. so they are very good drives.


----------



## Gorstak (Nov 3, 2018)

uhm, I don't think now is a good time to purchase an ssd. News say they are building new factories to produce them, and you can expect NAND chips to drop in price by 50% next year. Unfortunately, hynix, micron and samsung want to keep prices high, and aren't expanding, so RAM will probably get even more expensive than it is now.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Nov 3, 2018)

it's a great time to purchase an ssd.just about a year ago a 1tb (cheapest one,crucial mx 300) cost ~1100pln. Now they're 650-700, with that micron being an exception and selling below 500.

I decided to go with 860 evo 500gb, it's enough for now + foreseeable future, plus I trust samsung drives. I don't rule out getting that 1100 in the future though. I'll keep an eye on it.The obvious disadvantage is that it's a micron's oem drive, in case there's something wrong with it it may be super hard to do anything.


----------



## Gorstak (Nov 3, 2018)

I'd say now is a good time to buy a 120GB drive, because they are very very cheap atm, and that samsung 500 will probably be worth half it's price next year, so I'd just get something like kingston a400 for now and go for higher storage capacity ssd next year.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Nov 3, 2018)

lol 120gb are the wort price to gb ratio, and worst performance ones too.

cheapest 120gb is  99pln here, for a shit planar tlc drive with no buffer like adata 650. 1tb of them would cost 800pln. 1tb mx500 is 650, micron 1100 is 485. I just got 860 evo 500gb for 330.

I got a 128gb su900 for os, cost me a lot as far as 128gb goes, almost 2x what cheap 120gb cost. But it's a 3d mlc drive with dram buffer and slc cache, 5 year warranty. You can bet those cheap 120gb drives will run like crap once they're almost full. Buying the cheapest ssds is a terrible idea. I only asked about this micron cause it's a 3d tlc drive, and after a short research it's actually quite good, it's basically a mx300 with a higher tbw (400tbw for 1tb). Only problem is support, that's why I went with 860 evo.


----------



## Gorstak (Nov 3, 2018)

currently, kingston a400 120GB SSD sells for 77 PLN in my country, and it's a decent drive. It will probably stop selling or be worth peanuts next year.

edit: correction, it was an action @ mall.hr 2 x a400 for 134kn (77 pln) each. Currently they cost 199kn. a 240gb version is just over 300kn.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Nov 3, 2018)

how can it sell for 77pln in your country. and a400 is a *terrible* drive. It's all I'm talking about. I perfer to pay a premium than to get a shit drive. It's getting 25/80 4k r/w at just 30% full while I get 35/110 random 4k r/w and sequential at over 500 for r/w both with drive 60% full. Plus good luck running planar 15nm tlc on a system drive with a 3 year warranty. On a system drive you get writes all the time.






I'd *never* take that offer for 2x120gb a400s. I guess people are lured by the price,but trust me, it's a *bad* choice.Get a decent 250gb drive like mx500 or wd blue 3D/sandisk ultra 3D or go home.


----------



## Gorstak (Nov 3, 2018)

I never said they are cream of the crop. Samsung is making much better drives. What I wrote is that prices will drop by 50% and you should get a short term solution until that happens.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Nov 3, 2018)

the prices will not drop by 50%. if they do, HDDs are out of business.A short term solution would be getting a drive like that a400, and it's the worst decision one can make. I've got 1.1TB of ssds already,280gb free, with that 500gb I'll be good for a long time.


----------



## Gorstak (Nov 3, 2018)

https://www.pcgamesn.com/nand-ssd-price-drop-oversupply


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 3, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> I found Micron 1100 1TB SSD selling at 485PLN. Very good price. For comparison MX500 1TB is 650PLN here. Is it a good drive ? I heard it's a pretty good budget one. It'll be for games.



I have two of them currently in raid for my steam, origin and ubi library they are good drives


----------



## cucker tarlson (Nov 3, 2018)

Solaris17 said:


> I have two of them currently in raid for my steam, origin and ubi library they are good drives


I'm surprised to see that,they actually are. I'm only worried about the support. It's basically an OEM drive, I'm gonna have a lot of problems in case it goes bad.


----------



## Hockster (Nov 3, 2018)

I've got a couple of the 2TB versions, no issues with them at all. Been in use for maybe a year now, not sure exactly when I got them.


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 3, 2018)

Hockster said:


> I've got a couple of the 2TB versions, no issues with them at all. Been in use for maybe a year now, not sure exactly when I got them.



Sorry yes I should have clarified, I also have the 2TB versions of the 1100.


----------



## John Naylor (Nov 5, 2018)

We have several users getting ready for new post holiday builds, looking to squeeze it in before the tariffs rise to 30% again January 1.   I have asked them about storage and specifically what their plans are SSD versus alternatives and what needs they have whereby what will they put on  SSD versus other options.

Curious as to what **frequently** undertaken activities other forum users are doing that makes them really appreciate having the speed of an SSD as an aid to these activities.


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 6, 2018)

John Naylor said:


> We have several users getting ready for new post holiday builds, looking to squeeze it in before the tariffs rise to 30% again January 1.   I have asked them about storage and specifically what their plans are SSD versus alternatives and what needs they have whereby what will they put on  SSD versus other options.
> 
> Curious as to what **frequently** undertaken activities other forum users are doing that makes them really appreciate having the speed of an SSD as an aid to these activities.



Hm this forum might be a bit difficult to get a “everyday user” response from. Personally I get them for longevity vs hdds 

As for what I do with them that makes me appreciate speed?

Scratch space when I’m video editing 
Game load time obviously 
Pc load times and system responsiveness in general
Virtual machines I don’t offload to my server
Large data transfers when I’m doing content creation, specifically modifying .WIM files to prepare for deployment.


----------



## John Naylor (Nov 7, 2018)

Solaris17 said:


> Hm this forum might be a bit difficult to get a “everyday user” response from. Personally I get them for longevity vs hdds
> 
> As for what I do with them that makes me appreciate speed?
> 
> ...



What "everyday users" like Joe Everyman are doing was not "placed on the table".   I am specifically asking what activities ***TPU Forum Users*** are **frequently** undertaking , that is on on a routine basis.

The genesis of this question was when one of the users who came to us was referring to a build he wanted 'for college' using "graduation money" which only allowed for on board GFX ... the GFX card was planned to be a XMas gift to himself allowing him to check out the cards that were to come out in September.  He has about $400 to spend and I recommended he just add the GFX card as everything else had been well chosen (Z370, 8600k, SSHD, good cooler, 2 TB SSHD, 620 watt M12 PSU) .  He asked what my thoughts were on dropping from a 1070 ($420) I recommended to a 1060 ($295)  so he could add a 512 GB 960 EVO  ($120) to his gaming build.   He had read on a forum that I won't mention ... it was THG ..  ... that an SSD was critical for gaming. 

I answered that giving up a 50% faster GFX card for 0.9 seconds of boot time or 7 seconds of game load time didn't seem worthwhile especially since will likely never notice.  He doesn't do programming, video editing, animation, rendering, etc (taking accounting) where I could see an advantage so I started wondering what might make it worthwhile that is outside my realm of experience.

As an example., can we justify the investment in a SSD because ....

Scenario A - When we build a new box , it will take xx minutes to transfer data from old box to new box.   That is not a **frequently** undertaken activity and therefore is of no relevance to the question.

Scenario B - A friend just brought you a 500 GB Samsung T5 Portable SSD  containing all episodes of all the Star Trek Series or the full videos of your son's football games from pewee thru college.  Now if you are going to sit and stare at the progress bar, then you certainly will be displeased w/o the fastest storage option.  But I'm gonna hook that up, start the transfer and go watch a football game with my buddy and then give him back the drive when he goes home 3 hours later... so again speed isn't doing anything for us.

Scenario C - I just started my video editing side business and I've got two workstations that I bounce back and forth between, editing one file on one PC while doing format conversions on the other.   You need things done for folks to pick up at end of day.  So yes, there's an obvious advantage ... definitely a get the biggest, baddest and most ya can afford situation.

So while most anything you can do on a PC will be faster on an SSD, the question relates to any actual increase in productivity.   But the typical tests used to show how great a SSD is or to differentiate between them don't typically involve things that we do on a  frequent basis:

-Time it takes WinRAR to uncompress the Linux 4.12 Kernel tar.xz archive to the tested drive.  _How many times do folks here do that on any one particular box ?_
-The 4.0 GB ISO image of Windows 10 64-bit was copied to a different folder on the same drive. _As above ?_
-Installed Microsoft Office 2016 Professional _As above ?_
-Installed Adobe Reader, Google Chrome and iTunes.   _As above ?_
-In this test, we measured the time it took Photoshop CS6 to open ten 50 megapixel images at the same time and, once done, process each image, one by one. The operations performed on each image were crop, move, auto levels, resize to 1024x768, and save for the web. _As above ?_


As for the reliability, we have not installed a HD in 8 years, most boxes have at least 1 SSD and 1 SSHD ... in that time:

... have had 3 SSDs fail, one of those a warranty replacement for one that previously failed.
... have had 0 SSHDs fail, after 5 years of usage, we try and re-purpose for off site storage tho many are still in place.

Of those 3 failures, IIRC, one was in 2015 and the warranty replacement was in 2016... the replacement lasted 19 months.   The last was also in 2017, 1 month after warranty expired 

My laptop SSHD is 6 years old.   My personal PC has twin SSDs and twin SSHDs and will be 5 years old tomorrow.   No SSD failures in the last 5 years so while i couldn't say this a few years ago ... in the last 5 years, I have seen little to say reliability is significantly better one way or the other.  Last I looked, Samsung was averaging about 0.24% failures, Corsair about 1.84%.  HDs were averaging about 0.70% from Seagate, 1.03% from WD.  While ya can say that the best SSDs are 3 x better than the best HDs, its also safe to say reliability of the best SSDs is 99.76% to 99.30 % for the best HDs.  Unfortunately no data available for when they 4.5 years old, those numbers are for units 6 - 12 months old.

For your overall usage, SSDs are easy to justify... even before prices started getting near reasonable ... looking at your uses

 - Scratch space when I’m video editing - proverbial "no brainer" to have an SSD

 - Game load time obviously - As Zappa said this is the "crux of the biscuit".  Undoubtedly the SSD moves data faster, but does it matter ?  Have same games on both SSD and SSHD ... For comparison purposes.  In the MMO I play, it takes 44 seconds on both the SSD and SSHD from launch till I can move my character.  This is because handshaking with the server (220Mbs connection) takes longer than anything else, same as it did when was 100 Mbs.   Or, if I sit and stare at screen I can measure a load time difference in say Witcher 3 with the stopwatch on my phone.  I don't remember the difference between SSD and SSHD loading times other than it was small.  But lets say:

SSD loaded in 12 seconds
SSHD loaded in 17 seconds

In either case, I finished up my work for the day, launched the game and more often than not, did one or more of the following:
... took a bio
... made a sammie for dinner
... let out the dogs
.. sent kids some texts

In either case, game loaded b4 I get back

Or even say I had already done all of those, and launched game after returning.  Then i will ...

... Close all workday apps ... 4 seconds
... Took headset off hanger, unplugged charging cable from headset, took domgle out of storage space on headset frame, plugged dongle into USB port, replaceds storage cover and put on head, swung mic down ... 15 seconds
... launched discord, selected channel ... 9 seconds
... launched the apps I use for the MMO I play .. 3 seconds or
... launched browser to standard 4 tabs for that game ... 4 seconds

So yes the SSD killed on load time, but tho Game was ready for me , I wasn't ready for it until twice that time had expired.  It did the job faster but didn't get me playing any faster.

 - Pc load times and system responsiveness in general -

If I boot off SSD, load time is 15.6 seconds (boot being button press to password entry screen)
If I boot off SSHD,  load time is 16.5 seconds

No real impact and end result... I save 0.9 seconds once or twice a month.  A system is only bottlenecked by it's weakest link ... and that's me.   I can't hit the keyboard as fast as the system can put characters on screen.  Even using our main app, AutoCAD, there's no operation that doesn't complete before I have entered the next command.  Now if I was rendering, that's an application that's even more worthy of an SSD than video editing but less than 2% ACAD of users do any rendering

Virtual machines I don’t offload to my server - No experience here, but another instance where this would seem to have a significant advantage with SSD

Large data transfers when I’m doing content creation, specifically modifying .WIM files to prepare for deployment - Have no familiarity with that stuff but of course any routine large data transfers would benefit from the speed. For most folks even PC enthusiasts, large data transfers will be limited to:

... copying data from old storage device to new build.  That's an operation I will start and then either go to sleep or do something else so how long it takes is immaterial.

... Backups ... again, I think most of us are sleeping when that happens.

... large file transfers over network or other activities which you start and then multi task ... likely even realizing when it completed.

There's an old saying ... "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, did it make a sound ?"  The two schools of thought are a) of course it did, and b) who cares ?  If nobody heard it, it doesn't matter.   So that's the point here.... if a SSD completes a task, and nobody is sitting waiting for it to complete, who cares ?  The Photoshop test is a script of 60 individual operations .. 1) open file, 2) crop file, 3) move file, 4) auto levels 5) resize and 6)  save to web .. rinse and repeat 9 more times.   It completes the task in 49 seconds ... how long will it take to make the necessary KB entries / mouse clicks to accomplish that ?  A cupla analogies....

... If an attorney employs a secretary and on average she has to work 60 minutes of overtime a day, if i change out her HD to an SSD, will I save on overtime costs ?  I have done that test here launching large AutoCAD files off both SSD and SSHD (program is on SSD) ... they both take the exact same time... but even if it didn't, no one is going home earlier.

... If I drive the Porsche 930 to a job site instead of the SUV, will I get there any earlier ?... no of course not ... not in he real world of rush hour stop and go traffic.   But yes, i still enjoyed driving the 930 even tho once I get there, the SUV is better suited for the muddy site.  So yes, I love knowing that the SSD is faster, but to date, I am unable to give a practical  reason for doing so.  Since we can multi-task, even away from the PC, how long it takes a storage device to accomplish something more often than not, doesn't change anything.

Tho we have been building PCs for 25 years, I'm humble enough to recognize that my experience doesn't encompass all of PC-dom.  I know that SSDs are an automatic for animation, video editing,  rendering etc ... back in the day I would pay $1,000 for a 1 GB SCSI Hard drive because back then, with RAM limited, AutoCAD did a lot of writing to disk between each operation.... now this is stored in RAM and storage has become far less relevant ... when i click on "save" icon, it's done before I can move the mouse to next command.  So to be in a better position to understand user needs, it would be useful to understand what other instances, the investment brings something "real" (in other words besides benchmarks) to the proverbial table.

Sorry for the wall of text but I was just sitting here waiting filling time and rambling waiting for wifie to get home with my car


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 7, 2018)

Your fine, I actually agree on some of your points for sure. Just a little bit of info for you, and a little bit of perhaps bias from me.

With any hardware upgrade, be it GPU, SSD etc what makes them faster?

Can you answer that without numbers? Can your friend or client? We know because we read the white papers. But speed is relative isnt it? Atleast to users. In that regard 



John Naylor said:


> Undoubtedly the SSD moves data faster, but does it matter ?



it does. To me. Because iv already experiences it. the difference between NVMe and SSHD may just be the "faster" im looking for. Where as for your friend the move from HDD to SSHD may be all the speed they deem "worth it".

Between your friend and myself this can be two totally different values.

As for longevity, much like you admit some of my tasks you are unfamiliar with, my perception is skewed. The company I work for is a PC repair chain and MSP. My managers run stores that take break fix clients. Checking in a machine from a customer involves the creation of a ticket. Todate that ticket number is over 18,000. Thats alot of PCs in one year. 

I have had HDDs last a long time. I have had SSDs not last a long time. However I facilitate the infrastructure for these three stores and sometimes that touches inventory management systems. Now that along with speaking to those managers in general shows that everyday users (albiet NOT TPU members) do NOT for the most part take care of their machines. from drops shock and temp changes HDD failure rates are incredibly high. 

But thats also my line of work. most os of course shock damage, with machines coming in for a tumble only to find drive failure. So again, its a bit of bias, thankfully SSDs do not suffer the same fate generall when someone bangs there laptop against something, or their desktop falls over. So as such from what my managers and I see in the daily life of a PC in the hands of the avg person you bumped into on your way to the checkout line after work SSDs last longer.


----------



## John Naylor (Nov 7, 2018)

Solaris17 said:


> Can you answer that without numbers? Can your friend or client? We know because we read the white papers. But speed is relative isnt it? Atleast to users. In that regard



I would but only for curiosity's sake.  For example... I might wanna know how long it takes the SSD to take a backup of my data drive.  And i will get some sort of warped nerdy sense of satisfation from that.   However.... what impact does that have if it started at 1:00 am and finished at 1:12 am or 1;08 am ?  Im sleeping.




> It does. To me. Because iv already experiences it. the difference between NVMe and SSHD may just be the "faster" im looking for. Where as for your friend the move from HDD to SSHD may be all the speed they deem "worth it".



The user already has an SSHD.  The question is:

1)  is the $120 investment in the SSD worth it just for the sense of knowing its faster in things that he never does or does not impact how he uses it every day.   Is it worth it sitting there knowing it's accomplished it faster if he was unable to take any advantage in it doing to ?   It's like those MS office scrips that go 147 things via script ... use the script and the SSD scores a big win.  Sit 2 people down at a PC using a KB, they both get done at thew same time because the task completion time on the PC is dwarfed by the user's time pushing keys on the KB by orders of magnitude.

2)  getting those 'hard to notice' advantages comes at the cost of 50% more fps ?



> I have had HDDs last a long time. I have had SSDs not last a long time. However I facilitate the infrastructure for these three stores and sometimes that touches inventory management systems. Now that along with speaking to those managers in general shows that everyday users (albiet NOT TPU members) do NOT for the most part take care of their machines. from drops shock and temp changes HDD failure rates are incredibly high.



That's the most frustrating thing about "hey look, here's the latest Backblaze reort so looks like I am buying the right HDs".   The features which make great consumer drives giving them that resistance to shock (head parking) is exactly what causes them to fail in a server environment.    A similar argument can be made about air coolers... their 2 lb weight puts far less strain on a mobo, than the 70 ponds of force on their CLCs hld down mechanism's 70 pound clamping force.  But put that PC in the hands of FedEx Ground gorillas and you have a 50-50 chance of them handing you a noisy box upon arrival.  Similarly, the "busines sman on the go" lappie should always have a SSD.  Our "business model" if yu could call it that is one yu'd hate.  Tho we build all boxes here, we go to the user's place of business or home to diagnose repairs and 2) we don't bill anyone.


----------



## Final_Fighter (Nov 7, 2018)

i have to agree with john on this. even a low end ssd is more than enough for everyday usage. most people just dont move large files everyday. its always a good idea to look for the best deal but in regards to an ssd its more about size for the everyday user.

obviously most people fall into the category that its just a size matters situation but they get sucked into thinking they need the drive that can "boot faster", "browse faster", "copy quicker", "write quicker". and the drive that does all of those things is 25% or more in cost and most people would hardly be able to tell the difference. John hit the nail on the head. invest your money in components that will actually give you a noticeable performance increase that you can measure. people are overthinking this whole ssd thing. most are quite capable for the everyday user. if you dont fall into the average "gamer", "web browser", "word processing" catagory then what i am saying does not apply to you.


----------



## StrayKAT (Nov 7, 2018)

Final_Fighter said:


> i have to agree with john on this. even a low end ssd is more than enough for everyday usage. most people just dont move large files everyday. its always a good idea to look for the best deal but in regards to an ssd its more about size for the everyday user.
> 
> obviously most people fall into the category that its just a size matters situation but they get sucked into thinking they need the drive that can "boot faster", "browse faster", "copy quicker", "write quicker". and the drive that does all of those things is 25% or more in cost and most people would hardly be able to tell the difference. John hit the nail on the head. invest your money in components that will actually give you a noticeable performance increase that you can measure. people are overthinking this whole ssd thing. most are quite capable for the everyday user. if you dont fall into the average "gamer", "web browser", "word processing" catagory then what i am saying does not apply to you.



As far as booting goes, I'm willing to bet these Microns and Crucials boot faster than M.2 SSDs. I mean, one good thing about SATA still is it doesn't have the "warm up" delay. And for all of the other typical uses, like you said, it's probably good enough.


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 7, 2018)

id bet that too, either way let’s keep to the OP I think continued discussion regarding the opinions of speed differences and their perceived “need” can Uber their own thread.

This is specifically about the 1100


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 7, 2018)

cucker tarlson said:


> I found Micron 1100 1TB SSD selling at 485PLN. Very good price. For comparison MX500 1TB is 650PLN here. Is it a good drive ? I heard it's a pretty good budget one. It'll be for games.



I got a 2TB Micron 1100 for $230 ish us dollars about 8 months ago or so, forget exact date. but i have had 0 issues with mine.  great drive


----------



## John Naylor (Nov 7, 2018)

Final_Fighter said:


> i have to agree with john on this. even a low end ssd is more than enough for everyday usage. most people just dont move large files everyday. its always a good idea to look for the best deal but in regards to an ssd its more about size for the everyday user.



Keep in mind, all that being said, I still put at least 1 SSD in every  build that is not budget limited.  I can't justify it logically, but I'm a nerd and just "knowing it's there" makes me happy .

We set a shared workstation up with both SSD and SSHD with OS and programs even games on both and using a 3rd data drive (SSHD).   While users were "outta the room", I'd go into BIOS and change the Boot drive, unplug the associated data cable.  With 5 different users using the PC.... no one noticed ... the scam was 'we have new AV software, let me know if you experience any slowdowns.  After 6 weeks no one noticed.   At one point I even installed an old HD that we use for outside storage copying files by inserting in HD docking station.  Everybody had multiple sittings at each configuration... and on one instance received a "I'm not really sure but boot seemed slower today".  Did years before  with two lappies... SSD + HD versus SSHD.  No one noticed anything but I had to keep "cleaning" the 120 GB SSD as it had a habit of growing its footprint and wanted to avoid disk full messages.


----------

