Samsung 850 PRO or Crucial MX100?

[hojnikb]

What advantage would it give?

Raid0 == better sequential performance( up to 1GB/s)

raid1 == better reliability (if one fails, other one will work just fine, thus not affecting your data).

[hojnikb]

I guess - the problem is, with SSDs advancing so fast, and assuming your data load isn't that of a server, you won't *need* the performance of the 850 pro, and the difference between a 730, 850 and MX100 won't be noticeable unless you try to measure it. By the time 3-4 years is up, (the warranty length of an SSD), the drive would be dated, and won't perform as well as other drives on the market, and would have been way more expensive.

 

Better buy a MX100 now, then upgrade in 3 years to something with a few times the capacity and much better performance at half the price.

Also, I'm not sure if I want to trust Samsung, seeing as how their 840 Evo drives recently had a large problem.

 

here are some links on the Intel SSDs, they're a good watch.

Intel's products are known for their reliability - it's the reason why they make most stuff (motherboards, chipsets, CPUs, SSDs) mostly for the enterprise (maybe not CPUs so much); they might not perform the best, but they come darn close, and are legendarily reliable. As Linus put it, he has some Intel SSDs that have been running since 2008 without a hitch.

 

*khm* 330 8MB bug *khm*

*khm* 33x and 5xx using sandforce *khm*

[FedCOM]

Honestly between the 3 drives mentioned here, unless you measure it, you will NOT notice a difference in performance.

I would personally go with the 850 Pro since I like the Magician software, I like to see how many writes I have done over the life span of the drive, as well you get 10 year warranty on the 850 Pro i believe.

 

Having said that as others have mentioned, pick one since in 2-3 years you will be getting something much faster especially with M.2 and PCI Express for interfaces becoming more mainstream plus more PCI Express lanes available on new CPU/Mobo systems, etc, etc, etc.

 

Also personally I would stay away from RAID.  Again the performance of RAID 0 would really not be noticeable in daily tasks and games unless you are doing a TON for moving data around.  The reliability of 1 I understand but I just do not like the idea that if the controller card fails, unless you get the same chipset/card your data is gone.  I like storage spaces or drive pooling.  I like being able to take my drive and plug it into a new system and have access to my files but that is just me.

[Recon97]

I will be using SSD as my main drive,kind of...I will put many games in it,steam,game updates,softwares,OS and just everything that I need to access fastly.Do you really think MX100 is best for this work?,personally,I don`t think so.For me 850 PRO is the best choice since it gives 10 years warranty.

[Joshua Ondangan]

Intel ssd's are reliable. and so are other brands out there. sandforce is fine. been using a lot of sandforce ssd for the past years and still going strong.

 

the newer ones are pretty good too.

 

like they say if what you have ain't broken no need to fix it. can be replaced though

 

anyways 850 pro looks good and fits in my book. so does the crucial mx100 just go with which your wallet/money wants to have a date

[Razor512]

If you monitor your SSD, you will often see that you do more writing to it than you think you do.

 

For example, I do video editing, I do not dump raw footage to the SSD, instead it goes onto a 2TB 7200RPM hard drive, but from just editing it and the random caching that the applications do, in addition to some gaming that I do, I put around 50TB+ or writes per year to the SSD, and I do not even do heavy video editing.

 

For ssd's such as the 840 evo, the write endurance is low with the 240GB one entering its death cycle at about 90-100TB of writes (at which point it starts to rapidly burn through spare sectors). Due to wear leveling, all of the cells are used relatively evenly, so once some cells start to fail and get disabled, you can bet that all of the cells are close to death, and a few which are the weakest of the herd failing first, but the rest are soon to follow.

 

16nm MLC has lower write endurance than 19nm TLC flash.

 

While the 850 pro is expensive, it is a better value when you consider the added performance, as well as the cost per write endurance.

 

While it needs to be externally verified, when the 80 pro was being released, some of the people from samsung claimed to have pushed the 128GB 850 pro to well over 5PB of writes without it failing

 

Overall, when you have an SSD that can handle a massive amount of writes, then you get a drive where you do not have to worry too much about how many writes a task or application would do to the SSD.

 

Overall, I personally focus on going for reliability. I don't want to have to worry about writes during the time that I will be using it before upgrading. With an 840 evo, or worst, the MX100, I personally would have to make major changes to how I use my system if I want the drives to not fail or become far less reliable within 2 years.

[Recon97]

If you monitor your SSD, you will often see that you do more writing to it than you think you do.

 

For example, I do video editing, I do not dump raw footage to the SSD, instead it goes onto a 2TB 7200RPM hard drive, but from just editing it and the random caching that the applications do, in addition to some gaming that I do, I put around 50TB+ or writes per year to the SSD, and I do not even do heavy video editing.

 

For ssd's such as the 840 evo, the write endurance is low with the 240GB one entering its death cycle at about 90-100TB of writes (at which point it starts to rapidly burn through spare sectors). Due to wear leveling, all of the cells are used relatively evenly, so once some cells start to fail and get disabled, you can bet that all of the cells are close to death, and a few which are the weakest of the herd failing first, but the rest are soon to follow.

 

16nm MLC has lower write endurance than 19nm TLC flash.

 

While the 850 pro is expensive, it is a better value when you consider the added performance, as well as the cost per write endurance.

 

While it needs to be externally verified, when the 80 pro was being released, some of the people from samsung claimed to have pushed the 128GB 850 pro to well over 5PB of writes without it failing

 

Overall, when you have an SSD that can handle a massive amount of writes, then you get a drive where you do not have to worry too much about how many writes a task or application would do to the SSD.

 

Overall, I personally focus on going for reliability. I don't want to have to worry about writes during the time that I will be using it before upgrading. With an 840 evo, or worst, the MX100, I personally would have to make major changes to how I use my system if I want the drives to not fail or become far less reliable within 2 years.

So i think i should go with 850 pro.Its so much reliable since its provides lots of reads and writes(actually its soooooo much for me) and its warranty is of 10 years.Should i choose 500gb or 1tb space?

[Razor512]

It depends on how much storage space you need. For the SSD, do not save your photos, documents, music, videos and other content that really doesn't need the speed of the SSD.

 

Overall, consider how much space you will need for the OS, installed applications, cache, and temp files, then add around 30-50% to that value. Unlike older and lower end SSD's the 850 pro's flash memory is much faster than the SATA bus, so you from normal use, you do not get that write speed drop when each cell has a bit of data, and the drive now needs to twice the internal IO's to add a second bit to each cell.

 

Overall, do not overspend on more capacity than you need, as while this may be the top of the line SATA SSD, in probably a few years or less, something much better will likely come out and you may decide to upgrade again; especially if companies stop price gouging on PCI express SSD's (seriously, it doesn't really cost extra to make them).