MX500 vs 860EVO

[COTG]

Title, are the extra ~20 Cad spent on a 860 EVO worth it?

Ive looked at a couple benchmarks that show that their performance difference is minimal, does anybody have some real life experience with either?

[eira]

I have the MX500 and it's a pretty nice SSD.

Save yourself the extra $20, it's not really worth paying more for a slight performance increase.

 

[Enderman]

I would spend the extra for the 860 evo.

It's not about the marginal performance increase, it's about better build quality and endurance/reliability.

If you care about your data and having high performance 5 years from now, then buy a samsung SSD because they're at the top in terms of longevity and quality.

[COTG]

Just now, 1kv said:

I have the MX500 and it's a pretty nice SSD.

Save yourself the extra $20, it's not really worth paying more for a slight performance increase.

 

thats what im thinking as well. Do you happen to know how long it takes for your system to boot?

[eira]

6 minutes ago, COTG said:

thats what im thinking as well. Do you happen to know how long it takes for your system to boot?

It takes anywhere from 30 seconds to 2 minutes usually.

[SupaKomputa]

i'm using mx500 and never heard problems with anyone on crucial.

 

[eira]

6 minutes ago, Enderman said:

I would spend the extra for the 860 evo.

It's not about the marginal performance increase, it's about better build quality and endurance/reliability.

If you care about your data and having high performance 5 years from now, then buy a samsung SSD because they're at the top in terms of longevity and quality.

In terms of reliability I'd take the evo anyday, but in terms of price to performance you can't get much better than the MX500.

If OP cares about reliability then it's a much better choice spending the extra $20.

[COTG]

Just now, 1kv said:

It takes anywhere from 30 seconds to 2 minutes usually.

really that long?? 

Currently running a 960evo nvme on my main system and it takes only a couple seconds to boot. 
Is the difference between nvme and sata that large?

[eira]

3 minutes ago, COTG said:

really that long?? 

Currently running a 960evo nvme on my main system and it takes only a couple seconds to boot. 
Is the difference between nvme and sata that large?

NVMe usually has much quicker read/write speeds than SATA. Also take into consideration that I'm using an i5 4460 and 8GB RAM (not the most powerful system in the world but good enough for a file server) 

I also have 75% of the drive filled up so that probably affects loading time too.

[COTG]

7 minutes ago, 1kv said:

NVMe usually has much quicker read/write speeds than SATA. Also take into consideration that I'm using an i5 4460 and 8GB RAM (not the most powerful system in the world but good enough for a file server) 

I also have 75% of the drive filled up so that probably affects loading time too.

thats insane, ive always thought nvme was only slightly faster. Anyways thanks for the information! Ill probably just go with a 250gb 960 boot-main game drive and a HDD for the rest

[Enderman]

9 minutes ago, 1kv said:

NVMe usually has much quicker read/write speeds than SATA. Also take into consideration that I'm using an i5 4460 and 8GB RAM (not the most powerful system in the world but good enough for a file server) 

I also have 75% of the drive filled up so that probably affects loading time too.

NVME does not make any difference to boot speed over a regular sata SSD.

[SupaKomputa]

7 minutes ago, COTG said:

really that long?? 

Currently running a 960evo nvme on my main system and it takes only a couple seconds to boot. 
Is the difference between nvme and sata that large?

don't judge system by its booting time, its different from one to the other.

one's may boot longer as he install more things that needs to get booted.

the different between NVME and Sata ssd is the bandwidth, you need to run high bandwidth program to make use of it.

Solid state boots quicker compared to hdd because the non existance seek time.

[WereCat]

Both are great. Just get the cheaper one. 

[COTG]

2 minutes ago, Enderman said:

NVME does not make any difference to boot speed over a regular sata SSD.

i think it might just be the difference in systems then, since my boot speed is significantly faster on my 960

[COTG]

1 minute ago, SupaKomputa said:

don't judge system by its booting time, its different from one to the other.

one's may boot longer as he install more things that needs to get booted.

the different between NVME and Sata ssd is the bandwidth, you need to run high bandwidth program to make use of it.

Solid state boots quicker compared to hdd because the non existance seek time.

In that case ill probably go with the Sata ssd then, and chalk up the difference to systems

[SupaKomputa]

yeah, i still running it in sata, the difference is not that practical at least for now.

[Enderman]

9 minutes ago, COTG said:

i think it might just be the difference in systems then, since my boot speed is significantly faster on my 960

Yeah, sometimes you need to do a clean install because windows gets slow or you have too many startup processes or something else.

[EchoBlue]

I would go with Samsung but if you gotta save the money then Crucial is ok.