# Crucial vs. Samsung SSD



## drade (Apr 9, 2017)

Hello all. I am building a computer for my brother. I personally have the Samsung EVO and Samsung PRO SSD with a 2TB Western Digital Black HDD.

My brother knows nothing about computers. I am building him one specifically for gaming, mid range system. I am thinking of purcharsing the Crucial MX300 275gb SSD compared to the Samsung EVO 256gb SSD. How are crucial drives? It's slightly cheaper and has 25gb more. Will be buying a 1TB Western Digital Black HDD as well.

How are ADATA drives these days? Use to have one years ago had no issues.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 9, 2017)

I went Crucial MX300 because of M.2.  I don't have any complaints so far.


----------



## alucasa (Apr 9, 2017)

Doesn't matter either one. Grab whichever is cheaper at your location.

ADATA is like Kingston. They offer the cheapest products. I haven't used ADATA recently, so I can't really vouch for them.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 9, 2017)

Everyone tends to base their preference on either personal experience, reviews/consumer experience read online, or irrational beliefs/opinions.  I'd recommend you either go with the first or the second deciding factors , seeing as the third is not based in fact. With that said I have experience with mainly Samsung drives and I still haven't had one die yet,  so i like theyre drives, but I have sense enough to know there are other good drives


----------



## jsfitz54 (Apr 9, 2017)

Own:
Samsung: 1x 830(256GB), 2x 840PRO(256GB) and 1x EVO(500GB), 2x 850EVO(500GB)
Crucial: 5x M500(256GB)
Plextor: 1x M3(128GB)my very first SSD, 2x M5P(256GB), 5x M7V(256GB) 1x (500GB)

None have failed.  Had good experience with all, even the Samsung 840EVO that had issues.

Be sure to update to latest Firmware before loading OS, just to leave out any potential issues on a new build.
I have flashed all with OS loaded no issues.

As far as your question regarding Crucial goes, they may not be the fastest on paper but they are durable and have great customer service.


----------



## natr0n (Apr 9, 2017)

Crucial are equally good.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 9, 2017)

In truth it's all been covered above, and in consumer daily use you are unlikely to see a difference.  Crucial has a reputation for reliability, but so does Samsung.  

So, since for consumer use you won't notice much speed difference, it comes down to cost and personal preference.  I own both, but prefer Crucial.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Apr 9, 2017)

ADATA is just fine.


----------



## DRDNA (Apr 10, 2017)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> ADATA is just fine.


ADATA made some real bad ass super cheap crazy overclocking ram in the past! Just saying.


----------



## biffzinker (Apr 10, 2017)

So far I've had Intel's 320 80GB, 525 120GB, 530 120 GB, Samsung 850 EVO 250 GB, PNY CS1100 240GB, and most recent Sandisk Ultra II 480GB. No failures have happened for me yet. The Intel 320 80GB is the oldest with 4.6 terabytes of writes but it hasn't dipped into the reserved (10%) space.

Edit: Forgot the Samsung drive


----------



## yotano211 (Apr 10, 2017)

I currently own both Samsung and Crucial.
*Samsung
2 samsung msata 850 500gb
1 500gb sam 850 m.2,
1tb sam 850 2.5in and 840 1tb 2.5in

*Crucial
1tb m.2 x300, 2tb x300 2.5in x300
I have found that samsung about 5-10% faster at times or on benchmarks and it has longer warranty but the Crucial has a better price. The 2tb SSD will be replaced with a 2tb normal HD next week. I can make a small profit on it and I dont need the speed like I once did and rather have money for it. 

I like the Crucial better for the better price per GB.


----------



## FireFox (Apr 10, 2017)

yotano211 said:


> but the Crucial has a better price.



Yeap, and that's it, Crucial it's the choice if you're short of money, otherwise if you prefer quality Samsung is the way to go.

Samsung = best quality 

Crucial = low price


----------



## AsRock (Apr 10, 2017)

rtwjunkie said:


> In truth it's all been covered above, and in consumer daily use you are unlikely to see a difference.  Crucial has a reputation for reliability, but so does Samsung.
> 
> So, since for consumer use you won't notice much speed difference, it comes down to cost and personal preference.  I own both, but prefer Crucial.



How ever Samsung back their product a extra 2 years, for this reason i would still pick another Samsung if i was buying one today.


----------



## P4-630 (Apr 10, 2017)

AsRock said:


> How ever Samsung back their product a extra 2 years, for this reason i would still pick another Samsung if i was buying one today.



I did the same thing, have bought 1 500GB 840 evo (latest firmware and no slow downs), 5 years warranty and a 512GB 850Pro with a 10 year warranty, they were a bit more expensive than most other brands, but yeah you get what you pay for , at least in warranty.


----------



## FireFox (Apr 10, 2017)

P4-630 said:


> at least in warranty.



And quality too, don't forget that point.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 10, 2017)

Yeah thay are a decent chunk more expensive than competitive brands Ssd's, but i HATE when a drive goes shit on me while it is still in use especially when it is sudden without warning. After my fair share of desperate attempts to rescue data, i figure if it gives me more peace of mind its worth it, & I certainly dont wanna hear "yeah those (insert decent ssd maker name) are decent ssd's i dont know what went wrong , the only better ones would've been samsung, guess you should've gotten one of them". I dont cut any corners with data storage,if theres better reviews with a crucial, or kingston, & any other manufacturer ill be buying there ssd instead, it just happens that when i bought mine, sammy's were best rated. Basically its the quality for me
Not the brand.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 10, 2017)

Knoxx29 said:


> And quality too, don't forget that point.


Nothing wrong with Crucial quality either, and the MX300 is pretty fast for non benchmarking. 

Everything is not always so black and white. Just say your preference, and no one can argue with that.


----------



## azngreentea01 (Apr 10, 2017)

Most SSd now a day are reliable go for cheapest one. they still run pretty fast than HDD. I have two crucial SSD. running for 2 years with no problem. And 1 been running for 6 year so far, still no problem. Just dont fill it up, leave at least 10-15% space.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 10, 2017)

Whichever SSD is cheaper. Base speed of SSD is high enough not to notice anything until you move up to PCIE SSD's. Even the cheaper SSDs saturate SATA 600 anyway.

Consider also the cheaper (budget) versions like Crucial's BX line. I have yet to notice a tangible difference  in responsiveness or speed. For regular consumer use these will be more than sufficient.

All I can tell you is that my Samsung 830 has been running since it got released as my main OS/application disk and I have a Crucial BX next to it that does everything just as fine for my games. Drives are in daily use and constant access, no issues whatsoever on either one. Durability tests also put these SSD's  way over the number you see in the spec lists.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 10, 2017)

I have had more failed Samsung drives than anything else cross my desk. That being said more are sold. If the argument is quality I don't remember any stories about crucial drives throttling under heat load. 

As it sits they are all about the same there are only a handful of nand manufacturers. Pick the ssd that fits your needs in size and speed and move on.


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Apr 10, 2017)

drade said:


> I am building him one specifically for gaming, mid range system.


Then skip the SSD/HDD setup.  Have you considered the new Seagate SSHD's?  5 year warranty.  I feel that the WD Blacks are WAY overpriced. 
Seagate FireCuda Gaming SSHD 2TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive ST2000DX002

I've had mixed results with Seagate over the years, but I've never had a DOA like I did with WD.  My last Seagate lasted 44 days longer than the warranty, but I'm still willing to give them a second chance, especially with that 5 year warranty.


----------



## R0H1T (Apr 10, 2017)

jboydgolfer said:


> Everyone tends to base their preference on either personal experience, reviews/consumer experience read online, or irrational beliefs/opinions.  I'd recommend you either go with the first or the second deciding factors , seeing as the third is not based in fact. With that said *I have experience with mainly Samsung drives and I still haven't had one die yet*,  so i like theyre drives, but I have sense enough to know there are other good drives


I'm sure you've jinxed yourself there, now wait as the NAND gods bring retribution to your storage house.


----------



## Unter_Dog (Apr 10, 2017)

Everybody's individual experience is anecdotal, I think both are reputable brands and for day to day use any decent SSD is fast enough.  The extra warranty is nice, though in my experience Samsung's RMA process is a pain.


----------



## drade (Apr 10, 2017)

thebluebumblebee said:


> Then skip the SSD/HDD setup.  Have you considered the new Seagate SSHD's?  5 year warranty.  I feel that the WD Blacks are WAY overpriced.
> Seagate FireCuda Gaming SSHD 2TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive ST2000DX002
> 
> I've had mixed results with Seagate over the years, but I've never had a DOA like I did with WD.  My last Seagate lasted 44 days longer than the warranty, but I'm still willing to give them a second chance, especially with that 5 year warranty.



I have WD Black HDD three years now no issues (backup). 

Never thought about SSHD. I always learned that the better, yet pricier, option is to run OS and games on SSD and store other things like files in backup drive.


----------



## peche (Apr 10, 2017)

alucasa said:


> Doesn't matter either one. Grab whichever is cheaper at your location.
> 
> ADATA is like Kingston. They offer the cheapest products. I haven't used ADATA recently, so I can't really vouch for them.


ADATA and Kingston are well knwon for memory, famous Ram manufacturer, i have used ADATA memories but not SSD's/ HDD's ... but i have own and used kignston drives, they work pretty fine, there are several options by price and performance,



Knoxx29 said:


> Yeap, and that's it, Crucial it's the choice if you're short of money, otherwise if you prefer quality Samsung is the way to go.
> 
> Samsung = best quality
> 
> Crucial = low price


Dont embarrass yourself , Samsung drives = unhappy users, bad reports... 

Crucial its a reliable and great quality, with a decent price tag and several entry levels and cheap versions, they also do great ram and some other products, manufactured by Micron....



DRDNA said:


> ADATA made some real bad ass super cheap crazy overclocking ram in the past! Just saying.


DDR3 silver modules?


Spoiler: XPG














Unter_Dog said:


> Everybody's individual experience is anecdotal, I think both are reputable brands and for day to day use any decent SSD is fast enough.  The extra warranty is nice, though in my experience Samsung's RMA process is a pain.


Well Said, people tend to recommend what they have used without problems and like to share with others, pretty complicated some times,


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 10, 2017)

Crucial SSD's are of course 100% problem free. Only if you entirely ignore their whole forum where people complain over various stupid things. But sure, Samsung = unhappy users, bad reports...


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 10, 2017)

Unter_Dog said:


> Everybody's individual experience is anecdotal, I think both are reputable brands and for day to day use any decent SSD is fast enough.  The extra warranty is nice, though in my experience Samsung's RMA process is a pain.


Extremely well said.


----------



## DRDNA (Apr 10, 2017)

peche said:


> DDR3 silver modules?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: XPG



I really don't remember other than they were DDR3 but I think they were bare-naked ones.


----------



## Jetster (Apr 10, 2017)

I've never had an issue with a Samsung SSD. Except for the one 840 I think where the speeds were not as advertised. But a firmware fixed it. I think I still have it running in a laptop somewhere. But I've bought many and never had to send one back
Ive never bought a Crucial SSD


----------



## peche (Apr 10, 2017)

DRDNA said:


> I really don't remember other than they were DDR3 but I think they were bare-naked ones.


i remember those cuz they liked me a lot, but never found them for my rig, great memory, great OC....



RejZoR said:


> Crucial SSD's are of course 100% problem free. Only if you entirely ignore their whole forum where people complain over various stupid things. But sure, Samsung = unhappy users, bad reports...


i have installed and used several Crucial Drives, 98% of them still on use, no problems taking mine on the list with 4 years being so kick ass,  just got one that died when the computer had 2 years... 
about samsung i have heard here in TPU several bad reports, issues and others...

Regards,


----------

