Crucial Intros 2 TB Version of its BX500 Series SATA SSD

[Raevenlord]

Crucial has started shipping a 2 TB version of its famous, budget/minded BX500 Series of SATA SSDs. As pricing on NAND density has come down, it makes sense that budget solutions start to increase their capacities as well, since there is no longer a premium on new, advanced technologies. The Crucial BX500 2 TB model features the same 3D TLC NAND as the other capacities in Crucial's portfolio: 96-layer 3D TLC NAND flash memory mated to an SMI SM2258XT DRAM-less controller.

Since it maintains the communication protocol (SATA), and the hardware is virtually unchanged except for higher densities, don't expect improved performance: the 2 TB drive is still rated for up to 540 MB/s reads and up to 500 MB/s writes. Pricing is set at $214 (or €241) for the 2 TB model, which means price per GB stands at roughly $0.10.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[dj-electric]

I really hope that the street pricing of that one will be much, much lower to even be able to compete against the likes of Intel's 660p.
Like... 150-160$ cheap.

 

[QUANTUMPHYSICS]

Intel's 660p was the first 2TB nvme m.2 I've seen drop below $200.

I personally prefer Samsung or Crucial, but a deal is a deal. My main desktop storage is Crucial SSD.

I've had several. They are fast, reliable and I have had 0 failures in 4 years - not to mention my client's PCs.

I trust Crucial to improve on the MX500 with this model, but I am starving for lower, sub-$200 pricing.

I also need 4TB models to drop in price.

 

[Minus Infinity]

Good to see it's TLC, I was worried it was QLC.

 

[Assimilator]

I really hope that the street pricing of that one will be much, much lower to even be able to compete against the likes of Intel's 660p.
Like... 150-160$ cheap.

Nobody can compete on price against the 660p since Intel stopped gouging it, as it uses far cheaper to manufacture QLC NAND. Until Samsung also stops price-gouging their QLC, the 660p is your best bet, unless you suffer from QLC phobia - in which case you're going to have to settle for the current TLC price stagnation.

I trust Crucial to improve on the MX500 with this model...

Then you're going to be disappointed, since this drive's controller is a DRAM-less version of the one in the MX500, and hence slower. The end result, particularly with the 96L NAND in BX500 vs the 64L in MX500, is that the former should very quickly drop to below the price of the MX500 2TB.

Another thing to be aware of is that overprovisioning means this drive's capacity is 1920GB, not 2TB.

 

[Nuke Dukem]

Neat. Should hold about a dozen games

 

[newtekie1]

Nobody can compete on price against the 660p since Intel stopped gouging it, as it uses far cheaper to manufacture QLC NAND. Until Samsung also stops price-gouging their QLC, the 660p is your best bet, unless you suffer from QLC phobia - in which case you're going to have to settle for the current TLC price stagnation.

It is currently cheaper than the 660p on Newegg. Bu the price is so close, it makes not sense to get the BX500. If you can go NVMe, spend the couple bucks more and get the 660p, it's the better buy. If you absolutely need a SATA drive, then buy the MX500. The MX500 is only $10 more, and you're already spending ~$200, so an extra $10 shouldn't matter.

 

[Assimilator]

It is currently cheaper than the 660p on Newegg.

Huh, wasn't even listed when I wrote the above post.

The MX500 is only $10 more, and you're already spending ~$200, so an extra $10 shouldn't matter.

Entirely depends on your use-case IMO. Personally, at this capacity, I'd be buying a SATA SSD to replace a SATA HDD, so price is the number one factor because any SSD, even one without DRAM, is going to slaughter spinning rust in terms of performance.

 

[Chrispy_]

I don't understand the point of high-capacity DRAM-less products like this. For a bargain basement 240GB boot drive in a budget laptop, DRAM-less makes sense, because the $2 cost of the DRAM is a significant proportion of the overall cost. Hell, I can find €15 120GB SSDs and I bet removing $2 from the BOM has a huge impact on their overall cost.

At 2TB, the vast majority of the cost is the NAND. Don't buy 2TB of NAND that has its performance ruined just to save a couple of dollars!

Street prices have the BX500 and MX500 2TB at almost exactly the same price, yet the BX500 is much worse than the MX500.

 

[QUANTUMPHYSICS]

Nobody can compete on price against the 660p since Intel stopped gouging it, as it uses far cheaper to manufacture QLC NAND. Until Samsung also stops price-gouging their QLC, the 660p is your best bet, unless you suffer from QLC phobia - in which case you're going to have to settle for the current TLC price stagnation.



Then you're going to be disappointed, since this drive's controller is a DRAM-less version of the one in the MX500, and hence slower. The end result, particularly with the 96L NAND in BX500 vs the 64L in MX500, is that the former should very quickly drop to below the price of the MX500 2TB.

Another thing to be aware of is that overprovisioning means this drive's capacity is 1920GB, not 2TB.

I have a total of five 2TB Crucials. So far everything is just fine.

As I mentioned, when I help "fix" a client's computer - I upgrade their HDD to one of these SSD.

They are tremendously happy with the SSD performance.