Crucial M500 960GB SSD $600

Unfortunately, these drives performance is quite.. um, undesirable.

I really wanted to get behind Crucial's latest offering. :(
 
Wyluliraven said:
Unfortunately, these drives performance is quite.. um, undesirable.

I really wanted to get behind Crucial's latest offering. :(
Click to expand...

.... this is the cheapest almost 1tb ssd you are going to get right now, its performance is way better than any hdd, if you are buying this you buying it for the space not to have the fastest drive.
 
These are very fast drives, thinking about pulling the trigger and picking up a couple to run in raid on my server.
 
I had no idea until now that ssds came in this capacity. Want want want.... But, alas, do not need.
 
Justintoxicated said:
Are these supported by Haswell / Z87 chipset?
I don't see them on the comparability list, since there appears to be problems with a large number of older drives on the Z87 chipset.

http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTM3MDI2NDE0NmJybHdmclZvV2lfN180X2wucG5n

article -> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/06/03/asus_z87a_lga_1150_motherboard_review/7
Click to expand...

These are probably some of the most current SSDs today so I would be extremely surprised if they weren't compatible.

OOS on Amazon. Guess I missed out.
 
CapnCrunch10 said:
These are probably some of the most current SSDs today so I would be extremely surprised if they weren't compatible.

OOS on Amazon. Guess I missed out.
Click to expand...

Well it's an issue with a lot of Sandforce drives..$600 is a lot to bet on without verification. I totally want one though I'm sick of running out of space on my SSD...Guess I missed out too.
 
A user review from Newegg....

"1,000 times shorter life than a normal SSD. Flash memory typically is good for 100,000 write cycles for each cell (bit) in the device. This device is only good for 72TB of writes which for a 960GB device is 75 write cycles per cell."

Is this true?
 
nanobeast said:
A user review from Newegg....

"1,000 times shorter life than a normal SSD. Flash memory typically is good for 100,000 write cycles for each cell (bit) in the device. This device is only good for 72TB of writes which for a 960GB device is 75 write cycles per cell."

Is this true?
Click to expand...

Thread at slashdot says:

SLC: 100,000
MLC: 10,000
TLC: 5,000

Then later:

34nm MLC NAND was good for around 5000 erase cycles.
20nm is claimed to be 3000 cycles.

So yes in a way, but who is buying SLC drives? Let me know where you find a good deal on a 1TB SLC drive though lol.
 
There's also a decent discussion around the endurance rating in the comments below Anand's review.
 
This or two of 512GB Samsung Pro?

Samsung pro is faster but what about the write cycle? About the same?
 
Justintoxicated said:
Are these supported by Haswell / Z87 chipset?
I don't see them on the comparability list, since there appears to be problems with a large number of older drives on the Z87 chipset.
Click to expand...

Those problems are with 1200 and 1600 series SandForce controllers from the year 2010.

Endurance concerns on consumer SSDs are vastly overblown. 960GB at 3000 P/E cycles divided by a write amplification of 20 gives you almost 8 years at 50GB written per day. Reduce WA to 10 and you get 15 years.

Let's talk about write amplification, which few here understand. WA of 20 is extremely... extreme. You'll probably never see WA over 10, and it's probably much less than that. Recent Sandforce controllers achieve typical WA of 0.6 and as low as 0.14, but the m500 doesn't use Sandforce and I was not able to find any review noting what WA the m500 achieves. But considering Crucial's reputation for highly enduring SSDs, the WA on the m500 line is probably pretty low.

Let's talk about GB written per day. Crucial's m500 warranty is "72TB total bytes written (TBW), equal to 40GB per day for 5 years". Intel bases its consumer SSD warranties on 10GB per day. I've owned an SSD for most of the year now, and I've written around 3 GB per day to it. If you're writing 40GB to your SSD every day of the year, you're in the 0.1% and should be looking at enterprise SSDs anyway.

Raise your hands, everyone who actually writes 40GB per day every day to their SSDs or HDDs, and tell me what you are doing.
 
I don't, but I download them for later use. I generally leave them on while at work/away and try them in the weekends. Also, have any of you ever downloaded a blu ray rip? That alone clocks in around 40 gigs.
 
sonicboom said:
I don't, but I download them for later use. I generally leave them on while at work/away and try them in the weekends. Also, have any of you ever downloaded a blu ray rip? That alone clocks in around 40 gigs.
Click to expand...

His point is that you need to do this -every- day for 5 years in order to wear out an SSD.
 
sonicboom said:
I don't, but I download them for later use. I generally leave them on while at work/away and try them in the weekends. Also, have any of you ever downloaded a blu ray rip? That alone clocks in around 40 gigs.
Click to expand...



No, I have not done that, and admitting to it on a forum yourself is just dumbfounding. Anyway so you do that every day, every single day now remember, for five years....? The point wasn't about how many times you might do it in 5 years but literally that it'd have to be every day. Besides, why would you download anything straight to the ssd rather than just installing it there?
 
This would be a nice drive to have for my Games installations. Install them all, run them all. I probably get a game every other week, so there isn't much writing to do. I never delete them unless the game was horrid, but ehh, no money for it. Oh well.
 
evilsofa said:
Those problems are with 1200 and 1600 series SandForce controllers from the year 2010.

Endurance concerns on consumer SSDs are vastly overblown. 960GB at 3000 P/E cycles divided by a write amplification of 20 gives you almost 8 years at 50GB written per day. Reduce WA to 10 and you get 15 years.

Let's talk about write amplification, which few here understand. WA of 20 is extremely... extreme. You'll probably never see WA over 10, and it's probably much less than that. Recent Sandforce controllers achieve typical WA of 0.6 and as low as 0.14, but the m500 doesn't use Sandforce and I was not able to find any review noting what WA the m500 achieves. But considering Crucial's reputation for highly enduring SSDs, the WA on the m500 line is probably pretty low.

Let's talk about GB written per day. Crucial's m500 warranty is "72TB total bytes written (TBW), equal to 40GB per day for 5 years". Intel bases its consumer SSD warranties on 10GB per day. I've owned an SSD for most of the year now, and I've written around 3 GB per day to it. If you're writing 40GB to your SSD every day of the year, you're in the 0.1% and should be looking at enterprise SSDs anyway.

Raise your hands, everyone who actually writes 40GB per day every day to their SSDs or HDDs, and tell me what you are doing.
Click to expand...

Yes 40GB a day is pretty extreme for what goes onto my SSDs, but as said a bit low for this model. Regular hard drives die too, of course they are not $600 bucks anymore either. Very tempted to pick this up so I can stop having to load my games on primitive spinning disks. Also, won't SSD just start to degrade if a section is worn out? Meaning unless its 100% full it will just reduce capacity to give you time to replace it? I'm thinking in 5+ years they guys won't be $600 anymore and a rather cheap replacement! On the other hand, system restores might be pretty brutal to this drive, I have fully restored my Intel SSD probably 10-12 times over the past 5 years, due to my gf getting viruses. If I was close to full capactiy and doing system restores (from WHS for example) it sounds like you could wear it out pretty quickly or does that use a lower WA??
 
Last edited:
Meaning unless its 100% full it will just reduce capacity to give you time to replace it?
Click to expand...

When it wears out and there are no blocks to wear level it is supposed to become read only.


Edit: Although if you have a large portion of the drive unused I guess it could theoretically still go on writing as long as it can wear level. You will not see the drive shrink the partition however.
 
Last edited:
evilsofa said:
Those problems are with 1200 and 1600 series SandForce controllers from the year 2010.

Endurance concerns on consumer SSDs are vastly overblown. 960GB at 3000 P/E cycles divided by a write amplification of 20 gives you almost 8 years at 50GB written per day. Reduce WA to 10 and you get 15 years.

Let's talk about write amplification, which few here understand. WA of 20 is extremely... extreme. You'll probably never see WA over 10, and it's probably much less than that. Recent Sandforce controllers achieve typical WA of 0.6 and as low as 0.14, but the m500 doesn't use Sandforce and I was not able to find any review noting what WA the m500 achieves. But considering Crucial's reputation for highly enduring SSDs, the WA on the m500 line is probably pretty low.

Let's talk about GB written per day. Crucial's m500 warranty is "72TB total bytes written (TBW), equal to 40GB per day for 5 years". Intel bases its consumer SSD warranties on 10GB per day. I've owned an SSD for most of the year now, and I've written around 3 GB per day to it. If you're writing 40GB to your SSD every day of the year, you're in the 0.1% and should be looking at enterprise SSDs anyway.

Raise your hands, everyone who actually writes 40GB per day every day to their SSDs or HDDs, and tell me what you are doing.
Click to expand...

well, i would say just dont go by numbers. if you are looking for enterprise grade SSD, then according to me it has to be sandforce based. In our company we have been using Intel 520 SSD which is delivering very high throughput.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top