Crucial Announces New BX500 Series of Entry Level SSDs

[Prima.Vera]

I wouldn't waste money on a 120GB drive today, not when 240GB drives can be had for $45. Realistically, 240GB is big enough for a system drive for most people still.

I never really understood why you need more than 100GB for a System drive anyways.
I have a Samsung 830 EVO 60GB drive used for the System drive and it's only half full. And yes, I have Win 10 Pro x64, Office 2016, iTunes, and a lot of other software installed. In all honestly, even 120GB for a System drive it's a waste.

 

[StrayKAT]

Using 250 for a system drive myself.. but I sometimes use the extra space for extra games I plan on playing repeatedly (but keep a separate large HDD for most games). If I could get a 10TB SSD, I wouldn't do this

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

also have a 250GB SSD as boot drive & another 240GB SSD for a few games. You don't need a large SSD unless you have the moolah to spend on a good 1TB SSD that doesn't break on you. dun wanna listen to some dude who says 120 & 240GB SSD that are deemed as "useless" when the user base of such capacity is much more bigger than you think, while us who can afford 500GB or higher only contributed a small percentage.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

I never really understood why you need more than 100GB for a System drive anyways.
I have a Samsung 830 EVO 60GB drive used for the System drive and it's only half full. And yes, I have Win 10 Pro x64, Office 2016, iTunes, and a lot of other software installed. In all honestly, even 120GB for a System drive it's a waste.

from my perspective as a gamer (mostly now) there are plenty of games that have hit the 5gb install sizes, I play 3 games totaling close to 25 GB, including mods, my current 7 days to die mods folder is 10.5GB and currently have only 1 mod installed, playtesting I've had up to 5 mods thats almost 50 GB used up. Gaming should warrant its own drive but I havent seen the need yet to do that when I still have room on C:\

 

[StrayKAT]

from my perspective as a gamer (mostly now) there are plenty of games that have hit the 5gb install sizes, I play 3 games totaling close to 25 GB, including mods, my current 7 days to die mods folder is 10.5GB and currently have only 1 mod installed, playtesting I've had up to 5 mods thats almost 50 GB used up. Gaming should warrant its own drive but I havent seen the need yet to do that when I still have room on C:\

That would actually be the majority of my games. Very few are 2GB or less nowadays. Hell, even a "light" looking game like Cuphead is 10GB.

 

[newtekie1]

I never really understood why you need more than 100GB for a System drive anyways.
I have a Samsung 830 EVO 60GB drive used for the System drive and it's only half full. And yes, I have Win 10 Pro x64, Office 2016, iTunes, and a lot of other software installed. In all honestly, even 120GB for a System drive it's a waste.

Using 250 for a system drive myself.. but I sometimes use the extra space for extra games I plan on playing repeatedly (but keep a separate large HDD for most games). If I could get a 10TB SSD, I wouldn't do this

My C drive currently uses 88GB, and was using almost 120GB before I recently did a cleanup. And most of that space is just Windows and program files. And I don't think I have anything extreme installed, I think the biggest thing I have installed is the Adobe suite. There are no games installed on my system drive. The user files are just my account, no one else uses the computer. Also it has non of my pictures or movies or anything like that, all of those are stored on the 3TB drive in my system. In fact 10GB of that 13GB is all in the appdata folder(no I don't use Outlook). I also have hibernation disabled, saving another 32GB of space, granted that amount of saved space is going to be a lot lower on most people's systems.

It is very easy for a normal user that just has a single drive(like in a laptop) to use up a 120GB drive, especially if they are saving things like their pictures to the drives. This is why today I won't put less than 240GB in a system as a system drive, and the cost difference is only 50% more for 100% more space, $45 for a 240GB SSD makes sense to me.

 

[coonbro]

pricing is looking better , but a 59 buck ssd went to 90/110 bucks and now just back to what they were before [and were mlc drives not tlc too boot ]

still any lower pricing don't hurt

 

[StrayKAT]

I'll just put this deal here in case anyone is interested. Not BX500, but I'm very tempted to get an MX500 on newegg atm.. 1TB M.2 for $200

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820156178

It's much slower than what I have.. but much larger. Decisions...

edit: Apparently these m.2's aren't much faster than SATA. :\

 

[newtekie1]

edit: Apparently these m.2's aren't much faster than SATA. :\

They aren't any faster than SATA, because they are SATA.

 

[StrayKAT]

They aren't any faster than SATA, because they are SATA.

Ah good to know. To be honest, I don't understand how they literally "are" SATA, but I'll take your word for it.

 

[Fourstaff]

Ah good to know. To be honest, I don't understand how they literally "are" SATA, but I'll take your word for it.

M.2 supports either PCIe 3, SATA 3 or USB 3 depending on what the manufacturers choose to use. In the case of MX500s, Crucial uses the SATA 3 interface.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.2

 

[StrayKAT]

M.2 supports either PCIe 3, SATA 3 or USB 3 depending on what the manufacturers choose to use. In the case of MX500s, Crucial uses the SATA 3 interface.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.2

I feel stupid for not knowing that now.

I guess this isn't good a deal as I thought.

 

[mihailc]

If they are close to the same price get the MX500 all day long.

Already did, month ago. Thank you very much!