850 Evo vs BX100

Trying to choose a 500 GB range ssd for under $200 and I found the 850 Evo for $196 somewhere and the BX100 for $180. Is the Evo worth the extra money? Would another different drive be worth it? I'm primarily interested in reliability and though it's TLC, the 850 does have two more years warranty then the BX100. What do you guys think?

 

Drop both from your consideration. Save a few dollars more and get a much better and reliable drive.

See:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1507897/...d-drops-on-old-written-data-in-the-drive/2120

 

I got the 850, I think I've done my due diligence and there has been no similar problems reported on the 850 Evo like the 840. It is objectively the best $196 drive I can get and I appreciate the lengthier warranty. Here's the deal if anyone wants it:

https://www.dealsaday.com/samsung-8...vertical-internal-solid-state-drive-ssd.html/

 

Sandisk Ultra II?

 

With people having issues with the firmware killing their SSD's with the newest Samsung 850 Pro, the EVO slow old file read problem and Samsung flat out refusing to even acknowledge that the original TLC nand based 840 has the same issues, I think that your decision is not really based on due diligence, but more on faith/hope.

Even the TLC based SanDisk Ultra II is not above suspicion for me. Too new to tell if it has any issues. Even double the caution on the EVO 850 which is even newer and hasn't had time to exhibit the issue, if it has it, of course.

Warranty doesn't mean anything when Samsung will take days, weeks and months to replace it with the same type of drive (and a used one too...).

I hope your leap of faith in Samsung is justified (not all examples show the issue, after all).

Good luck.

 

Tilleroftheearth, Thank you. I was under the impression that the 840 had been mostly fixed, but seeing this thread I can see that Samsung really doesn't care about their customers. I don't want to support a company like that, and I don't want to run into issues down the road that haven't been discovered yet. I cancelled my order and am now back in the market for a reliable SSD. What are your recommendations? I'm not really willing to pay extra for speed (will I notice the difference using Windows?) but I am willing a few more bucks for energy efficiency. My laptop is a W230SS and I ordered it without a hard drive, so I could fit either a 2.5" or a mSATA drive. What do you recommend?

 

I have owned every Samsung SSD till date and will never touch Samsung SSDs in the future! A company that releases crappy firmwares that break their super expensive SSDs and cause data loss....... see this....even with the 850 PRO ( BEWARE of new Samsung 850 PRO Firmware! )

The 850 EVO also has some issues when reading on the OC forums / SSD sub forum. Never buy a TLC SSD man unless you want trouble and lower performance.

With that said, I wouldn't get any of the SSDs you mentioned, the BX100 is a dog when it comes to performance, the worst SSD I've ever seen when it comes to performance.

Just get an MLC SSD such as the Crucial MX100 or better yet, the best of the best, the SandDisk Extreme Pro

 

http://techreport.com/review/27824/crucial-bx100-and-mx200-solid-state-drives-reviewed

The BX100 numbers don't look too bad...honestly they seem pretty good to me given the energy consumption and price (especially the real life numbers like windows load and game level load). What key numbers should be telling me not to get this drive?


Also I'm confused - would you or would you guys not recommend the Ultra II?

 

TLC nand based drives, including the SanDisk Ultra II?

Just say NO!

 

Honestly, I'd go for MX100 if I were shopping for a 0.5TB SSD in that price range..

BX100 doesn't seem like an upgrade from it, and MX100 has been pretty well-tested at this point in the game.

My $0.02 only

 

Get a BX100 or MX200

 

Anything crucial makes. BX100, MX100, MX200, or M550. I know the Msata version of the M550 is now under 200$

 

The mSATA MX200 500GB is under $200 too at NCIX US, which I think is a better deal. I would've bought it if they didn't charge tax.

 

The BX100 is a downgrade from the MX100, it's a budget / entry level SSD for those who want to upgrade for cheap from an HDD, but for a few dollars more, you can get a decent performing SSD

 

I know people are suspicious about the Ultra II, but since the start of my ownership, I have never had any performance degradation. *touch wood* The only downside is that it doesn't feel as snappy as my 840 Pro, but it might just be my imagination.

Time will ultimately tell.

 

mx100 or mx200, bx100 price don't justify a less known inferior controller.

 

Yup another vote for MX100/200

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/crucial-m550-512gb-m-2-temps.770697/#post-9916466

I'm a bit worried about mSATA temps, is this something to be concerned about? Also, the mSATA versions of the MX200 and m550 are the same price (M550 on Amazon which is +/- because they charge MD sales tax, but I have prime shipping). Which one is better? Will the difference in power consumption matter? How about heat production? Also, does anyone have experience with the time it takes to get something from NCIX? It says ships in 5-8 business days which is quite a while, but I won't have a chance to put this in until the 22nd anyways, so maybe its OK.

I guess my real question is: Will I notice the performance differences in M550 and known good reliability over the advantage of the lower heat and power consumption (but untested reliability and lower performance) of the BX100?

 

MX200 is newer and faster than M550, it's the Crucial branded version of the Micron M600

 

I got an update from my Clevo reseller, I should be getting my laptop a few days before I expected previously, so I'd like to get an SSD that can be bought on Amazon Prime, which pretty much leaves the $185 BX100, the $200 MX100, the $220 MX200 and the $189 850 Evo.

What is known about the MX100 BSOD problem?

At this point, my biggest concern is average power consumption and reliability since I think all will perform at similar real-world levels (within 1 second Windows start time).



850 Evo has TLC but best performance and energy consumption, second lowest price. Going consensus around here is avoid Samsung at all costs and I can get behind that with the 840 fiasco.
BX100 has best price and lowest MLC energy consumption. Performance is about the same as MX100 but is it significant? Reliability is a question mark, but the controller is a tested model.
MX100 is best tested and performance is good. Price is a bit higher than the others but has had some reports of causing BSODs. Power consumption seems OK but significantly more than the BX100 which is stellar.
MX200 is significantly more expensive and is only slightly better than MX100, correct?


I'm tempted to get the BX100, this review shows it to be superior to/at par with the MX100 while having a lower energy consumption. It uses a well known controller (Silicon Motion is no Sandforce) and good micron MLC NAND:

http://techreport.com/review/27824/crucial-bx100-and-mx200-solid-state-drives-reviewed/5

 

I'd get the MX200 out of those. I''ll take ANY MLC SSD any time of the day over TLC junk

 

Another option is the Transcend SSD370 512GB. It performs better than the MX100 and Ultra II in real-world testing per AnandTech's review. I got one of these along with an MX200 500GB mSATA.

Edit: It's the same price on Amazon (w/Prime) and Newegg too

 

Looks like it sucks up power a lot more than the others do, but maybe it is really insignificant in the scheme of things. Anand tests slumber power - is that when the computer is sleeping, or when the drive is on and idle idle?

 

True, that's why it's going inside an Optimus system while the MX200 mSATA will be in a non-Optimus SLI system

 

Some people haven't had bad experiences with their OCZ drives either, or (using a car analogy) some GM owners haven't been killed by their car's ignition switch.

Hopefully your drive will work just fine, but a sample of one doesn't compare to the total statistics of these faulty drives.

 

I have an MX100 for sale if interested. It's basically new. http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/fs-crucial-mx100-512gb-2-5-sata-iii-ssd-barely-used.773396/

 

But here you are making an assumption that since the 840 & 840 Evo drives have a flawed design, all TLC drives must also be faulty. Now this assumption may or may not be true, but so far there have been no reported (as far as I am aware) issues for the Ultra II series of drives, so comparing them to GM's fiasco is a bit far fetched.

 

While it might be just a matter of time for the Ultra II, failures and sub-par performance in OCZ (all kinds) and Samsung (TLC) SSDs are well-documented. Here are just a few examples for Samsung:

http://www.extremetech.com/computin...d-performance-issues-being-prepped-by-samsung
http://techreport.com/review/27727/some-840-evos-still-vulnerable-to-read-speed-slowdowns

For OCZ, even a quick glance at a Google search will be telling, nevermind the flood of terrible Newegg, et. al. user reviews.

The only way my GM comparison is "far fetched" is that nobody dies from a SSD failure (at least I'd hope). But it's still a massive failing of the design of the drive (at least the 840 EVO).

 

Another vote for the MX100 from Crucial. I've had mine for something like a year now, and in that time it's been in and out of at least six different laptops, serving as the main boot/OS drive. Formatted, imaged, placed in laptops and booted up (taken from my Alienware, placed in my ASUS and booted up after modifying some files).

Never a BSOD, freeze or anything. Could be I'm lucky and got a good drive, but have yet to fault it on anything.

It obviously isn't a top-end drive like the SanDisk Extreme Pro, but for $200 it does just fine.

 

I found this thread after having the same trilemma: BX100 250GB, MX200 250GB, or 850 EVO 250GB

What did you decide on eventually? Would you recommend something over something else?

I have crossed out the EVO because of several issues being reported about it.

Based on what it has been said in this thread and the following review, I think the BX100 pretty much covers me:
http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/591...250gb--500gb-ssd-review-sandwiching-the-mx100

I am Joe Average, I do not rely much on the performance of my drive, I just enjoy the snappiness. However, I can find the MX200 250GB only
at 20 euros more than the BX100 250GB. I can also see that the MX200 250GB has a dynamic write acceleration mode through an SLC cache
for the particular 250GB model, a TBW of 80TB as opposed to a TBW of 72 for the BX100, and it also exhibits some nice features such as power loss
protection, hardware encryption, and adaptive thermal protection that the BX100 does not.

More differences are explained here: http://www.custompcguide.net/the-differences-between-crucial-mx100-vs-m500-and-m550-ssd/

Power consumption wise, the MX200 is only a little behind the BX100, if none at all.

So, I think the obvious choice is the MX200, right?

 

Only thing to note about Crucial drives is that they can occasionally "go dead". But a power cycle, idle on power for 20 minutes, shut down, unplug for a few minutes, plug back in, power on, will fix it. Not ideal but it can happen and has happened on a few occasions with mine.

This article refers to M4, but same issue occurs with M500, M550, and MX100: http://forum.crucial.com/t5/tkb/articleprintpage/tkb-id/ssd@tkb/article-id/32

 

I've never had any issues with my crucial/micron drives, they always boot fine every time without any fuss, but that's not to say the issue doesn't exist. The same could not be said for sandforce drives, but I think those are mostly extinct by now. I say MX200/M600 because the features are nice to have and worth the extra dough IMO.

 

I actually have both of these drives except the 850 is a 500 gb m2 ssd and the bx100 is a 2.5 inch 1tb
the bx100 is a mlc drive it has the lowest power consumption. its basically a steal

there is also a transcend ssd that is exactly the same as the bx100

depending on price an mx100 or mx200 is better but it is largely the same thing with a different controller

where as the bx200 is an actual slow ssd its something different.

 

Yes this is an old thread, but it's worth mentioning that this is indeed a common occurrence. Crucial SSDs seem to have an issue with lower power states, and active garbage collection. I've had mine do this on a few occasions in several different systems. It has prompted me to go on the hunt for a SanDisk Extreme Pro.

There are tons of threads/posts about this exact issue on the Crucial forums, so it's a well-known issue on their end.

http://forum.crucial.com/t5/Crucial-SSDs/MX100-will-not-boot-sometimes/td-p/158815

 

My bx100 hasn't done that
In fact the only one that has hiccupped is the 850.

But it's still going strong it claims it will live 8 more years