# Which SSD?



## Musician (Jan 6, 2016)

Hello, guys. I decided to buy an SSD for the first time ever, but i dunno which one i should get...

Crucial MX200 500GB,
Kingston HyperX Savage 480GB
or Samsung 850 EVO 500GB?

the Crucial one is cheaper 200L.E (25$).
Kingston and Samsung the same price.

Which one do you favor? Thanks.

-Side question: How many SSDs i can assemble to my PC?


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Jan 6, 2016)

850 EVO


----------



## alucasa (Jan 6, 2016)

Musician said:


> -Side question: How many SSDs i can assemble to my PC?



850 EVO.

And how many you can have in your system would depend on how many sata ports you have. There are M.2 and PCI-E SSD but I don't think you'd be interested in those.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jan 6, 2016)

Is it really so hard to do a tiny bit of searching for some reviews and benchmarks of said drives? Probably help you make a more educated decision.


----------



## xvi (Jan 6, 2016)

Mfg. Specs on your motherboard said:
			
		

> Storage Interfaces: SATA-600 - connector(s): 6 x 7pin Serial ATA, 1 x M.2, 1 x SATA Express port - RAID 0 / RAID 1 / RAID 10 / RAID 5


You DO have an M.2 slot, so it might be worth investigating that (for the sake of keeping cables tidy). They make Samsung 850 Evos in the M.2 form factor. Absolute max would be about 8 7, it would seem. All 7 SATA ports filled and 1 for the M.2 port.

Oh, and +1 on the 850 Evo.

Edit: jmcs below me does make a good point though. The MX200 would be my second vote.

Edit 2: Oops. You have 6 SATA ports, not 7. All six filled plus the M.2 slot should be seven total. In typical scenarios, I can't imagine anyone really using more than four.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jan 6, 2016)

I'd go with the MX200 for $25 less...
The Samsung is better..it just is..but not enough to notice a difference.


----------



## Countryside (Jan 6, 2016)

+1 850 EVO it is  a reliable and fast ssd



MxPhenom 216 said:


> Is it really so hard to do a tiny bit of searching for some reviews and benchmarks of said drives? Probably help you make a more educated decision.



We have a lot of educated members here who can give good advice for a help seeker.


----------



## Jack1n (Jan 6, 2016)

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Toshiba/THNSNJ960PCSZ_960_GB_HK3R2/14.html
According to this the MX200 is slightly faster, and if you say its 25$ cheaper then the its better in price/performance, price/GB as well.
I would go with the MX200, had zero issues with my M500.

Edit: Here is the actual review for the MX200 by TPU:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Crucial/MX200_250_GB/1.html
The reason i used that review is because it is the latest SSD review made by TPU.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jan 6, 2016)

Countryside said:


> +1 850 EVO
> 
> 
> 
> We have a lot of educated members here who can give good advice for a help seeker.


Sure, but we should also encourage one to do some research on their own. Rather than constantly posting the same "this part vs that part" type of threads.

Since for the most part people will just end up linking the OP to the reviews and benchmarks anyways.


----------



## Countryside (Jan 6, 2016)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Sure, but we should also encourage one to do some research on their own. Rather than constantly posting the same "this part vs that part" type of threads.
> 
> Since for the most part people will just end up linking the OP to the reviews and benchmarks anyways.



Not trying to bust your balls here but you are politely telling the op to f**k off and google it, if the person has posted in forum its a decent thing to help him or her and then  suggest other methods.


----------



## ne6togadno (Jan 6, 2016)

xvi said:


> .... Absolute max would be about 8, it would seem. All 7 SATA ports filled and 1 for the M.2 port.
> 
> ...


6 not 8 but still enough even for raid 5


> (M.2, SATA Express, and SATA3 4/5 connectors can only be used one at a time. The SATA3 4/5 connectors will become unavailable when an M.2 SSD is installed.)



+1 for 850 evo
if price is important mx200 will do it as well


----------



## n-ster (Jan 6, 2016)

The MX200 is 10% cheaper ish? That's the better deal for 2.5". As said though, check out the m.2 850 EVO as well, it's usually worth it to spend a few extra bucks for it

The 850 EVO is a very popular model here, but it's not 10% better than the MX200. You have to remember that SSDs are much quicker than traditional hard drives or even old generation SSDs, these two models  will both feel just as fast. You'll have a hard time noticing a speed difference between two SSDs who's only difference are 10% in sequential and random read and writes. To me, this is similar to buying DDR3 2400 over DDR3 2133 for a machine used for Internet browsing.

OP likely did research to even come up with those three models in the first place. It's a very legitimate question as well, albeit a very common one


----------



## Jack1n (Jan 6, 2016)

n-ster said:


> The MX200 is 10% cheaper ish? That's the better deal for 2.5". As said though, check out the m.2 850 EVO as well, it's usually worth it to spend a few extra bucks for it
> 
> The 850 EVO is a very popular model here, but it's not 10% better than the MX200. You have to remember that SSDs are much quicker than traditional hard drives or even old generation SSDs, these two models  will both feel just as fast. You'll have a hard time noticing a speed difference between two SSDs who's only difference are 10% in sequential and random read and writes. To me, this is similar to buying DDR3 2400 over DDR3 2133 for a machine used for Internet browsing.
> 
> OP likely did research to even come up with those three models in the first place. It's a very legitimate question as well, albeit a very common one


But the thing is that the MX200 is not even slower, it about the same speed and even a tiny bit faster then the 850 and its MLC vs TLC AND its cheaper... kind of a no brainer to me.


----------



## hat (Jan 6, 2016)

I'd probably get a M.2 PCI-E SSD, just to get rid of a few cables. Make sure you get a PCI-E variant and not SATA, because your M.2 port is PCI-E.


----------



## qubit (Jan 6, 2016)

I'd go for the Samsung 850 Pro series, personally (got a 256GB one in my rig). The price premium has reduced quite a bit now and the technology in them really is superior. They're very fast, but more importantly very, very reliable and don't suffer from any weird slowdowns over time as they fill up. Basically, you get peace of mind with one of these and that's worth paying for.

The 840 Pro slowed down, but I believe that this was fixed with a firmware update quite some time ago now.

Also, you may want to get an M.2 drive as others have said, since the performance leaves any SATA based drive in the dust.


----------



## Musician (Jan 6, 2016)

Jack1n said:


> But the thing is that the MX200 is not even slower, it about the same speed and even a tiny bit faster then the 850 and its MLC vs TLC AND its cheaper... kind of a no brainer to me.



https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Crucial/MX200_250_GB/15.html

i knew that 

Thanks, guys for all support.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 6, 2016)

I would probably go crucial.


----------



## AsRock (Jan 6, 2016)

ne6togadno said:


> 6 not 8 but still enough even for raid 5
> 
> 
> +1 for 850 evo
> if price is important mx200 will do it as well



This ^^, As some one said the Sammy is $25 more but that $25 gets you all so 2 years longer warranty too.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 6, 2016)

MX200

Samsung EVO is a budget line NAND with a host of tricks to make it behave well. Samsung makes good SSD's but the nonpro EVO line is very much budget and in that segment the Crucials are simply better. Never mind speed, they all 'feel' exactly the same and they all saturate the bus so who cares about a few MB/s here or there, but reliability of the Crucial MX's is way better as they sport powersafe caps while the Samsungs do not.

I'll repeat that. Stay away from EVO for an OS or essential data disk. Samsung is cashing in on their great reputation, a rep they built with much more expensive NAND in the 830 and 840. It doesn't apply to EVO and this has been proven in several tests and reviews. I speak from personal experience as well as a multitude of reviews, I have had all of these SSD's and the Samsung 830 is still going strong as the OS-SSD, alongside a BX100 which is my non-essential (gaming) SSD. Note that MX is a (small) step up from the BX line from Crucial. I have also returned an EVO because it acted funny when I filled it up, including BSODs.


----------



## johnspack (Jan 6, 2016)

1000x Evo 850....


----------



## EdInk (Jan 6, 2016)

Have a go at this website, should give you some indications.. 850 seems to be the preferred choice.

http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-850-Pro-256GB-vs-Group-/2385vs10


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 8, 2016)

EdInk said:


> Have a go at this website, should give you some indications.. 850 seems to be the preferred choice.
> 
> http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Samsung-850-Pro-256GB-vs-Group-/2385vs10



Avoid like the plague, this is a useless big data comparison website that says nothing about quality, and everything about sales numbers. These websites compare specs, not actual performance. And the cherry on top here, is that you linked a comparison with the Samsung 850 Pro which is way more expensive.


----------



## EdInk (Jan 8, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> says nothing about quality, and everything about sales numbers



you clearly haven't run the test yet... pfffft!

edit: read the contents of the page carefully...if in doubt seek more information from the creators of the website. The site allows components to be compared against others..it's a link to aid OP with his research not advising him to buy an 850 pro


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 8, 2016)

EdInk said:


> you clearly haven't run the test yet... pfffft!
> 
> edit: read the contents of the page carefully...if in doubt seek more information from the creators of the website. The site allows components to be compared against others..it's a link to aid OP with his research not advising him to buy an 850 pro



These websites never tell the whole story. Specifically for SSD's, what really matters is not a few MB/s more or less in speed, but above all, reliability. Do you see ANY measure of this anywhere on this site? Do you see ANY information on SSD behaviour when the drive is nearly full? Do you see anything regarding lifespan, durability tests etc.? Anyone can make a nice layout and put some spreadsheet and bench data into it, but that is not at all helpful on a purchase. All recent SSD's are fast and almost all of them have decent controllers.

The end result of buying based on the info on these websites is that you only buy that which presents the highest bench number, which is far too limited in every possible way. Bottom line, if you want a solid and well informed purchase, read some reviews.


----------



## EdInk (Jan 8, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> Do you see ANY measure of this anywhere on this site? Do you see ANY information on SSD behaviour when the drive is nearly full? Do you see anything regarding lifespan, durability tests etc.?



I agree it isn't the full picture but isn't that what research is all about?

Advising the OP to pursue other angles in his research is a far better approach than 'bashing' someone else's input...like I mentioned it's to AID OP's research.

Where can information regarding the points you've raised be found?


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 8, 2016)

EdInk said:


> I agree it isn't the full picture but isn't that what research is all about?
> 
> Advising the OP to pursue other angles in his research is a far better approach than 'bashing' someone else's input...like I mentioned it's to AID OP's research.
> 
> Where can information regarding the points you've raised be found?



Reviews and some insight in the different kinds of NAND in the case of SSD's. Reviews, again, can also help to gain some understanding on what components are inside 'the box'. For storage and PSU specifically, this is pretty much essential info.

By the way the point was never to bash you, but I see these websites linked way too often in these threads, while they offer nothing more than anyone could find in the first 5 search results on google. To me it feels like an easy way out, and it is also a type of information that can really put a buyer on the wrong trail.


----------



## EdInk (Jan 8, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> Reviews, again, can also help to gain some understanding on what components are inside 'the box'



Information available on the link I provided.



Vayra86 said:


> To me it feels like an easy way out, and it is also a type of information that can really put a buyer on the wrong trail.



The reason why forums exist... collective information to be sifted. Suggesting that the information on the website is "useless" just seems a hasty reaction.

Durability, reliability etc require years of data collected which is quite difficult with consumer electronics as improvements in technology grow quite rapidly year on year.

Feel free to PM me as it seems to be turning into a debate. wouldn't want to bee seen hijacking the OP's thread..


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 8, 2016)

An example.

http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 8, 2016)

Musician said:


> Which one do you favor? Thanks.



I'd take the MX200 every time.  You'll get the same perceived performance for cheaper.  The 850 Evo might benchmark a few MB/s faster, but you'll never notice that difference in real world use. So save the $25 and go with the MX200.  Not to mention when the MX200 is running in MLC write mode, it has write speeds that are a lot faster than the 850 Evo.

But the fact of the matter is, at this point, all but the extreme cheapest of SATA SSDs will feel basically the same.  There really is not going to be any noticeable benefit to buying one over the other.  All the high end ones are bumping up against the limits of what SATA is capable of.  This is why we are seeing M.2 drives take over.



EdInk said:


> you clearly haven't run the test yet



I have, it is laughable to even call that benchmark a storage benchmark.  No test that finishes in less than 2 minutes, tests CPU, GPU, RAM, SSD, HDD, and USB, is going to be accurate.  The numbers on that site are not good numbers.  The test does not do a good job of testing storage.  That page, and the test, should be avoided.  It doesn't give accurate information.(Oh, and it is so bad, it thinks my 2TB Seagate Hard Drive is an SSD...)


----------



## P4-630 (Jan 8, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> MX200
> 
> Samsung EVO is a budget line NAND with a host of tricks to make it behave well. Samsung makes good SSD's but the nonpro EVO line is very much budget and in that segment the Crucials are simply better. Never mind speed, they all 'feel' exactly the same and they all saturate the bus so who cares about a few MB/s here or there, but reliability of the Crucial MX's is way better as they sport powersafe caps while the Samsungs do not.
> 
> I'll repeat that. Stay away from EVO for an OS or essential data disk. Samsung is cashing in on their great reputation, a rep they built with much more expensive NAND in the 830 and 840. It doesn't apply to EVO and this has been proven in several tests and reviews. I speak from personal experience as well as a multitude of reviews, I have had all of these SSD's and the Samsung 830 is still going strong as the OS-SSD, alongside a BX100 which is my non-essential (gaming) SSD. Note that MX is a (small) step up from the BX line from Crucial. I have also returned an EVO because it acted funny when I filled it up, including BSODs.



Costs about the same but..
Samsung 850 Evo 500GB warranty *5* years: https://azerty.nl/8-1990-794626/samsung-850-evo-series.html
Crucial MX200 500GB warranty just 3 years: https://azerty.nl/8-1990-799208/crucial-mx200-500-gb.html

I'd take an 850 Evo with *5* years warranty anytime!


----------



## EdInk (Jan 8, 2016)

newtekie1 said:


> Oh, and it is so bad, it thinks my 2TB Seagate Hard Drive is an SSD...



you forgot to mention it's a Seagate *Hybrid (SSHD)...*talk about tailoring words to suit your needs...kmt!


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 8, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> Costs about the same but..
> Samsung 850 Evo 500GB warranty *5* years: https://azerty.nl/8-1990-794626/samsung-850-evo-series.html
> Crucial MX200 500GB warranty just 3 years: https://azerty.nl/8-1990-799208/crucial-mx200-500-gb.html
> 
> I'd take an 850 Evo with *5* years warranty anytime!



The 'Crucial' difference here is the presence of powersafe caps. I'd take an SSD that has them over one that does not, any day of the week, because regardless of warranty in case of power failure the Samsung SSD will suffer heavily while the Crucial will not. And if an SSD fails, it will fail early, the endurance tests that have been done (see link) show that ALL SSD's easily meet the specced service time.

Again, I say look beyond the marketing slides and benchmark numbers. Storage is all about reliability and endurance.


----------



## Jack1n (Jan 8, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> Costs about the same but..
> Samsung 850 Evo 500GB warranty *5* years: https://azerty.nl/8-1990-794626/samsung-850-evo-series.html
> Crucial MX200 500GB warranty just 3 years: https://azerty.nl/8-1990-799208/crucial-mx200-500-gb.html
> 
> I'd take an 850 Evo with *5* years warranty anytime!


5 Years Limited Warranty or 150TBW Limited Warranty for the samsung, while the Crucial has no write limitation on its warranty.


----------



## P4-630 (Jan 8, 2016)

Jack1n said:


> 5 Years Limited Warranty or 150TBW Limited Warranty for the samsung, while the Crucial has no write limitation on its warranty.



"_160TBW for the $250/500GB model_"

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2884620/crucial-mx200-review-a-fast-ssd-at-a-nice-price.html


----------



## Jack1n (Jan 8, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> "_160TBW for the $250/500GB model_"
> 
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2884620/crucial-mx200-review-a-fast-ssd-at-a-nice-price.html


According to pcworld, there is no such mention on Crucials website.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 8, 2016)

Jack1n said:


> According to pcworld, there is no such mention on Crucials website.



There is no mention of one in the paperwork for them.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 8, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> An example.
> 
> http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead



What an excelent article writing style . The reaper came 

I just took 950Pro... I don't want to touch Sata3 devices anymore.


----------



## xvi (Jan 8, 2016)

Ferrum Master said:


> I just took 950Pro... I don't want to touch Sata3 devices anymore.


I picked one up as well. I couldn't help but giggle maniacally while I benchmarked it.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 9, 2016)

EdInk said:


> you forgot to mention it's a Seagate *Hybrid (SSHD)...*talk about tailoring words to suit your needs...kmt!



Doesn't matter, it is still a mechanical hard drive not a flash based SSD.  It doesn't treat hard drives and SSDs as RAM, even though they all have a certain amount of RAM cache on them, does it?(Though I wouldn't put it past that shitty program.)


----------



## fusionblu (Jan 17, 2016)

Musician said:


> Hello, guys. I decided to buy an SSD for the first time ever, but i dunno which one i should get...
> 
> Crucial MX200 500GB,
> Kingston HyperX Savage 480GB
> ...



Either Samsung or Crucial are just as good, but I prefer Samsung and would recommend that instead.
Main reason against Kingston would be the capacity as it is inferior and would prefer that sort of storage measure to be phased out entirely.

My preference for Samsung is general reliability, performance and price is good.

Amount of SSDs depend on the maximum available ports for your motherboard, but would recommend using the core chipset SATA 3 ports (either normal ones or ones which could be a part of the SATA Express ports, probably better to sticking to SATA 3 ports from the SATA Express ports) for Raid 0 with your SSDs and not include SSDs running from a non-core or secondary chipset(s) for maximum performance.


----------



## alucasa (Jan 17, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> An example.
> 
> http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead



Hah, Samsung Evo survived 2.1PB of writes. That's shitton. Way to go V-NAND. I personally don't care about how it died suddenly. There is a reason why I use SSD for only OS. I expect it to die one day and replace it swiftly.


----------



## AsRock (Jan 18, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> These websites never tell the whole story. Specifically for SSD's, what really matters is not a few MB/s more or less in speed, but above all, reliability. Do you see ANY measure of this anywhere on this site? Do you see ANY information on SSD behaviour when the drive is nearly full? Do you see anything regarding lifespan, durability tests etc.? Anyone can make a nice layout and put some spreadsheet and bench data into it, but that is not at all helpful on a purchase. All recent SSD's are fast and almost all of them have decent controllers.
> 
> The end result of buying based on the info on these websites is that you only buy that which presents the highest bench number, which is far too limited in every possible way. Bottom line, if you want a solid and well informed purchase, read some reviews.




Well my Sammy 850 EVO is always near full and never had a problem yet.

In fact it's been running that well over the passed year i have been thinking of picking up another, i don't mind paying a extra 10-25$ for 5 year warranty unlike the MX200 they only back their drive for 3 years.

So again 850 all the way.


----------



## R-T-B (Jan 18, 2016)

alucasa said:


> Hah, Samsung Evo survived 2.1PB of writes. That's shitton. Way to go V-NAND. I personally don't care about how it died suddenly. There is a reason why I use SSD for only OS. I expect it to die one day and replace it swiftly.



Actually, that's a 840 Pro, and it's neither VNAND nor an EVO (EVO's use TLC).

I'm really curious how 3d NAND would perform, but that test is from Samsung PLANAR NAND.  Incredible.


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 18, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> The 'Crucial' difference here is the presence of powersafe caps. I'd take an SSD that has them over one that does not, any day of the week, because regardless of warranty in case of power failure the Samsung SSD will suffer heavily while the Crucial will not. And if an SSD fails, it will fail early, the endurance tests that have been done (see link) show that ALL SSD's easily meet the specced service time.
> 
> Again, I say look beyond the marketing slides and benchmark numbers. Storage is all about reliability and endurance.


Except you're wrong in that no consumer drive, especially Crucial since *they market it as such*, has full data loss protection not even the Intel 730. They only provide "data at rest" protection, the last consumer drive which did was the Intel 320 

So bottom line is that 850 EVO has better performance, longer warranty & greater endurance, my vote goes to 3d NAND drive.


----------



## n-ster (Jan 18, 2016)

R0H1T said:


> So bottom line is that 850 EVO has better performance, longer warranty & greater endurance, my vote goes to 3d NAND drive.



Similar performance, warranty is nice but really a minor thing, endurance is probably similar between both (150TB for the Sammy, 160TB for Crucial are the "rated" specs. TLC VNAND probably has similar but a bit lower endurance than MLC NAND, so if anything, the crucial might have better endurance.

looks like MX200 is about 1800 LE, so 200 more is over 10% more for a drive that is almost identical. Paying more for 2 years warranty on a drive that is supposed to handle 150+TB (and most likely way more than that), is going to bring you further than 5 years anyways. The Samsung drive is very nice, but paying extra is mostly just for the brand


----------



## Jack1n (Jan 18, 2016)

R0H1T said:


> Except you're wrong in that no consumer drive, especially Crucial since *they market it as such*, has full data loss protection not even the Intel 730. They only provide "data at rest" protection, the last consumer drive which did was the Intel 320
> 
> So bottom line is that 850 EVO has better performance, longer warranty & greater endurance, my vote goes to 3d NAND drive.


According the TPU's own test the crucial is actually faster, and i highly doubt that a TLC driver is more durable then an MLC, the only thing the samsung drive has going for it is the warranty.


----------



## hojnikb (Jan 20, 2016)

n-ster said:


> Similar performance, warranty is nice but really a minor thing, endurance is probably similar between both (150TB for the Sammy, 160TB for Crucial are the "rated" specs. *TLC VNAND probably has similar but a bit lower endurance than MLC NAND, so if anything, the crucial might have better endurance.*
> 
> looks like MX200 is about 1800 LE, so 200 more is over 10% more for a drive that is almost identical. Paying more for 2 years warranty on a drive that is supposed to handle 150+TB (and most likely way more than that), is going to bring you further than 5 years anyways. The Samsung drive is very nice, but paying extra is mostly just for the brand



Actually , i'm willing to bet that 16nm MLC has worse endurance than 3D TLC from samsung.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 20, 2016)

I am still waiting for my original 32GB SSD's to fail from use or even degrade for that matter.


----------



## Ithanul (Jan 20, 2016)

I say either the crucial or samsung.  Darn things will probably out live their warranty.

I have the old Crucial m4 512GB trucking, original used for the OS, but got a 940 Pro now for OS.  I can't really tell the difference with daily stuff.  Only when I start hitting them hard with huge files like RAWs and 3D renders do you start to see where the speed comes in handy.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 20, 2016)

Has anyone on here actually had an SSD fail from data writes? My supertalent 32GB's were used in every wrong way possible. Raid 0 which disabled trim, windows 7 with no adjustments to the OS, constant full reinstalls done via backup drive clone (benchmarking rig) etc. Drives have been running since 2009 pretty much non-stop and are still in use today.


----------



## Ithanul (Jan 20, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Has anyone on here actually had an SSD fail from data writes? My supertalent 32GB's were used in every wrong way possible. Raid 0 which disabled trim, windows 7 with no adjustments to the OS, constant full reinstalls done via backup drive clone (benchmarking rig) etc. Drives have been running since 2009 pretty much non-stop and are still in use today.


I believe there was article where many types where tested.  Takes a lot of writes to actually kill one.

http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead

Only wish they had tested some Crucial drives though.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 20, 2016)

Ithanul said:


> I believe there was article where many types where tested.  Takes a lot of writes to actually kill one.
> 
> http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead
> 
> Only wish they had tested some Crucial drives though.



Yea I have read that one which is why I am curious if anyone on here has ever had a failure from writes.


----------



## xvi (Jan 20, 2016)

cdawall said:


> Yea I have read that one which is why I am curious if anyone on here has ever had a failure from writes.


I think one of our crunchers managed to kill a SSD. I think we attributed it to the writes that BOINC does (didn't think it was THAT much though).


----------



## cdawall (Jan 20, 2016)

I would be very curious to see what he hit write wise.


----------



## Ithanul (Jan 20, 2016)

Hmmm, I been BOINC on a SSD for the past year or so.  So far the Sammy been holding up.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 20, 2016)

evo.


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 21, 2016)

While there is plenty of reserve, this is why I just don't trust SSD's. They said they'd be read only after they die. That would be fine. You just boot system with new one, stick it in as secondary drive and copy data from it.

But if they all just brick themselves entirely after reboot, well that's a bit of a shit scenario, isn't it? How do you know when they bricked and when you're not suppose to reboot the system so you can still get data back? In over 20 years I'm fiddling with computers I've never seen any HDD die this way. And that's why I'm insisting with SSD's as cache only. If they die, I don't care. I just lose the speed, not the data. I slam new SSD inside, cache repopulates and I'm running at fulls peed again.

If anything, I hope SMART data will become more reliable at warning user. If CrystalDiskInfo warns me fast enough so that I can replace the drive data loss risk free, then I can see using them. I mean, my data is not important enough to run RAID1 at all times, but is important enough that I have CrystalDiskInfo monitoring my HDD status at all times.


----------



## AsRock (Jan 21, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> While there is plenty of reserve, this is why I just don't trust SSD's. They said they'd be read only after they die. That would be fine. You just boot system with new one, stick it in as secondary drive and copy data from it.
> 
> But if they all just brick themselves entirely after reboot, well that's a bit of a shit scenario, isn't it? How do you know when they bricked and when you're not suppose to reboot the system so you can still get data back? In over 20 years I'm fiddling with computers I've never seen any HDD die this way. And that's why I'm insisting with SSD's as cache only. If they die, I don't care. I just lose the speed, not the data. I slam new SSD inside, cache repopulates and I'm running at fulls peed again.
> 
> If anything, I hope SMART data will become more reliable at warning user. If CrystalDiskInfo warns me fast enough so that I can replace the drive data loss risk free, then I can see using them. I mean, my data is not important enough to run RAID1 at all times, but is important enough that I have CrystalDiskInfo monitoring my HDD status at all times.



Never trusted smart to be honest and it would not be the 1st time it's killed a drive when there was no need.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 21, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> While there is plenty of reserve, this is why I just don't trust SSD's. They said they'd be read only after they die. That would be fine. You just boot system with new one, stick it in as secondary drive and copy data from it.
> 
> But if they all just brick themselves entirely after reboot, well that's a bit of a shit scenario, isn't it? How do you know when they bricked and when you're not suppose to reboot the system so you can still get data back? In over 20 years I'm fiddling with computers I've never seen any HDD die this way. And that's why I'm insisting with SSD's as cache only. If they die, I don't care. I just lose the speed, not the data. I slam new SSD inside, cache repopulates and I'm running at fulls peed again.
> 
> If anything, I hope SMART data will become more reliable at warning user. If CrystalDiskInfo warns me fast enough so that I can replace the drive data loss risk free, then I can see using them. I mean, my data is not important enough to run RAID1 at all times, but is important enough that I have CrystalDiskInfo monitoring my HDD status at all times.



None of the drives in that test "just died" they gave tons of warning in smart. You should have well since backed up and chucked the drive out.


----------



## hojnikb (Jan 21, 2016)

Flash back then was much much more durable than today.


----------



## hojnikb (Jan 21, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> While there is plenty of reserve, this is why I just don't trust SSD's. They said they'd be read only after they die. That would be fine. You just boot system with new one, stick it in as secondary drive and copy data from it.
> 
> But if they all just brick themselves entirely after reboot, well that's a bit of a shit scenario, isn't it? How do you know when they bricked and when you're not suppose to reboot the system so you can still get data back? In over 20 years I'm fiddling with computers I've never seen any HDD die this way. And that's why I'm insisting with SSD's as cache only. If they die, I don't care. I just lose the speed, not the data. I slam new SSD inside, cache repopulates and I'm running at fulls peed again.
> 
> If anything, I hope SMART data will become more reliable at warning user. If CrystalDiskInfo warns me fast enough so that I can replace the drive data loss risk free, then I can see using them. I mean, my data is not important enough to run RAID1 at all times, but is important enough that I have CrystalDiskInfo monitoring my HDD status at all times.



If you do regular backups, then dead ssd all of a sudden is a non issue. It's just bad practice not to have backups, regardless of how reliable the technology you're storing your data is.


----------



## monim1 (Feb 28, 2016)

Internal drives are those used inside a computer to host its operating system, programs, and data. They generally are either regular hard drives or solid-state drives. Every personal computer needs at least one internal drive to work, and the performance of this drive plays an important role in the system's overall performance.
MX200 Is best.


----------



## Octopuss (Mar 7, 2016)

My wife's PC is piece of shit with its conventional HDD and I got to the point of refusing to do any support for her until the thing starts to be at least half responsive (starting Event Viewer and waiting 20 seconds for all the junk to load doesn't work for me). Yes I am an extremely impatient person.
I have to replace the disk with a SSD for the sake of my own sanity.
Samsung 850EVO, 250GB, yes or no? I know there are cheaper SSDs out there, but the difference is not huge, and Samsung, while possibly not being the top performer, is a kind of guaranteed quality, so I primarily have that in mind.
Or ss there anything else knocking on the doors I might want to wait for?


----------



## AsRock (Mar 7, 2016)

Been very happy with my 250GB Evo over the passed year, so happy i picked up a 500GB  Evo too a week ago.  And  if i was to get another it be another Evo unless a Crucial come at a crazy price enough for me to ignore the extra 2 years warranty being a person if a drive goes down i cannot just hit the bank up for some $$.

Love to try a Crucial though see if the speeds hold up over a year like my Evo 250GB has.


----------



## Ithanul (Mar 8, 2016)

Mmmm, Crucials are nice.  I am still trucking my m4 512GB one.  So far no problems with it.  Have not tried the newer ones.  It should be over 3+ years old now.


----------



## Octopuss (Mar 8, 2016)

Just found out the MX200 is more expensive than the Samsung, heh.


----------



## nedooo (Mar 8, 2016)

Octopuss said:


> Just found out the MX200 is more expensive than the Samsung, heh.


Samsung evo 850 seems like overall good choice....


----------

