Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Crucial BX500 - Really that bad?

 Share

Looking at a 1TB SSD to replace my array of smaller SSDs, it's only used for Steam library games and nothing else. BX500 is £58.99 vs MX500 £64.99 (UK ebay, brand new delivered). I know it's only a £6 saving, but £6 is £6 eh? Is the BX really that bad for my use case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used both the BX500 and MX500 (the MX500 is still in my PC). For gaming I really didn't notice any difference, but for big file transfers (including downloading game files with fast internet speeds) the MX500 is definitely better. I'd say both are great but imo the MX500 would be worth spending more

GPU Powercolor RX 6600 | CPU i5-10400F Motherboard B460M Pro4Memory HyperX Fury RGB 16gb 3200 | Storage MX500 500gb, Barracuda 2tb | PSU RM650x (2018) CPU cooler Hyper 212 RGB Black Edition | Case Some cheap Antec Monitor AOC C24G2U | Mouse G703 HeroKeyboard Drevo Seer Max (Gateron Brown) | Headset Arctis 3 (2019)Mousepad QCK Edge XL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strictly for storing games it's a completely viable option. Although one of the big differences between these drives is the write endurance. Meaning if you copy games over from one drive to another you're going to see a big slowdown on the BX500 after about 48GB of data written.

image.png.8e72041cdfb7aa7452b9080aa1ad4833.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all, I guess it is worth the extra £6, was just nice to see a 1TB SSD tip under the £60 mark that peaked my interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will add to the votes of spend the extra, perhaps it is the type of writes occurring that Steam does while decompressing and installing a game as it won't be all sequential, but I often see dramatic slow-downs on my 480GB BX500 after only a couple of tens of GB downloaded.

 

Disk usage shoots right up to 100% and sticks there for at least 30 seconds. Not noticeable when loading and playing games, though. N.b. this issue is compounded by having a full 1Gb WAN connection, it probably wouldn't be noticeable on much less than that. I have a smaller 250GB MX500 that never used to suffer this occurrence. 

{
    "PC": [
        {
            "Part": "CPU",
            "Spec": "i7-2600k @ 4.4GHz"
        },
        {
            "Part": "RAM",
            "Spec": "32GB 1600MHz Corsair Vengeance Pro CL9 9-9-9-24"
        },
        {
            "Part": "GPU",
            "Spec": "inno3d 980Ti"
        },
        {
            "Part": "Motherboard",
            "Spec": "Asus P8Z68-v Pro"
        },
        {
            "Part": "Storage",
            "Spec": "1x 500GB 860 EVO, 2x MX500"
        },
        {
            "Part": "PSU",
            "Spec": "Corsair GS800"
        }
    ]
}

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Remarkable_Day said:

I will add to the votes of spend the extra, perhaps it is the type of writes occurring that Steam does while decompressing and installing a game as it won't be all sequential, but I often see dramatic slow-downs on my 480GB BX500 after only a couple of tens of GB downloaded.

 

Disk usage shoots right up to 100% and sticks there for at least 30 seconds. Not noticeable when loading and playing games, though. N.b. this issue is compounded by having a full 1Gb WAN connection, it probably wouldn't be noticeable on much less than that. I have a smaller 250GB MX500 that never used to suffer this occurrence. 

Reviews say the 480GB model slows down after 24GB of writes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm looking to get the BX500 240GB For windows and a 1TB MX500 for games and steam. this is a Thread i've been looking for, if there's anything wrong with this idea please tell me. is it really worth the Extra 7 AUD ( 45 AUD vs 52 AUD) for a Boot drive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/28/2022 at 7:16 AM, BionicSeaSerpent said:

i'm looking to get the BX500 240GB For windows and a 1TB MX500 for games and steam. this is a Thread i've been looking for, if there's anything wrong with this idea please tell me. is it really worth the Extra 7 AUD ( 45 AUD vs 52 AUD) for a Boot drive?

Apparently so, given the small price increase the advise I took away was just go for the MX500.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bouncewasp said:

Apparently so, given the small price increase the advise I took away was just go for the MX500.

the BX500 just went our of purchase anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/28/2022 at 8:16 AM, BionicSeaSerpent said:

i'm looking to get the BX500 240GB For windows and a 1TB MX500 for games and steam. this is a Thread i've been looking for, if there's anything wrong with this idea please tell me. is it really worth the Extra 7 AUD ( 45 AUD vs 52 AUD) for a Boot drive?

You should swap them (MX500 for the OS and BX500 for the games/Steam).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wooden Law - Black said:

You should swap them (MX500 for the OS and BX500 for the games/Steam).

i may as well. its a whole 9 dollars cheaper to get 1TB on BX500, though it is 2 dollars cheaper overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, BionicSeaSerpent said:

i may as well. its a whole 9 dollars cheaper to get 1TB on BX500, though it is 2 dollars cheaper overall.

The 1TB BX500 uses QLC flash, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Wooden Law - Black said:

The 1TB BX500 uses QLC flash, though.

i'm Upgrading from 2 500GB SATA II WD Blue drives, it wont matter.

Edit: SATA II Is the Drive, not the motherboard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, BionicSeaSerpent said:

i'm Upgrading from 2 500GB SATA II WD Blue drives, it wont matter.

Edit: SATA II Is the Drive, not the motherboard

The fact is that with a QLC drive you have even worse endurance, not only worse performance…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Wooden Law - Black said:

The fact is that with a QLC drive you have even worse endurance, not only worse performance…

i won't be using this laptop for another 10+ years so it really wont matter anyways, i don't have the 1.5 grand to upgrade to a decent gaming laptop right now and its probably gonna be outdone in 2-3 years anyways by AMD's Integrated Graphics now that they have moved away from Vega.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 960GB model should have TLC, actually Micron updated these to 128L flash a while back also...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×