Crucial M500 240GB SATA 2.5" 7mm (with 9.5mm adapter) SSD vs SAMSUNG 840 EVO MZ-7TE250BW 2.5" 250GB SATA 6Gb/s MLC SSD

Hi everyone,

I bought a SSD almost a year ago (128 Gigs) for my laptop and have been very happy with it. I want to replace my desktop HDD with a ~250 Gig SSD as well. I don't know much about computers so I figure I ask here for some advice!

These 2 fall within my price range of ~$150 and I think both brands are pretty good:
Newegg.com - Computer Hardware, SSDs, Internal SSDs, 129GB - 256GB, $100 - $200, 5, Newegg


Was wondering which one was "better" or if there is another model/brand that you guys can suggest that is comparable?


Also I plan to "Over-provision" by 30% like I did for my laptop SSD to increase its speed as suggested by tilleroftheearth in my thread last year ( http://forum.notebookreview.com/sol...-ssd-vs-intel-330-2-5-inch-120gb-sata3-2.html)


Oh and since I am installing it in my desktop instead of laptop, will the 2.5" still fit or I MUST buy one with the 9.5mm adapter?


Thanks for your help!

 

The height of the SSD won't matter whatsoever, since you're installing it in a desktop. You have loads of space in there, though it would be good to get a 2.5" to 3.5" bracket to install it in one of your HDD bays.

The M500 will have MLC NAND, which will last a lot longer than the TLC NAND of the EVO.

 

Sigh, not this again............

With the quality of TLC chips used today on the mainstream SSDs like EVO, its a moot point that MLC will last you longer. You will need to do a sick workload every day for years to even scratch the life expectancy of TLC chips. For normal users, your SSD will last you easily 20+ years for 250GB and bigger SSDs. How many people keep using the same SSD for 20 years? Very very very very few people.



TLC, MLC. They are all fine.
Please take note.

 

Well, it's true. Everything else is sort of a moot point I suppose (both are very fast at seq read/write, random access, etc.). Only other difference of note would be the controllers, and both companies use good, reliable controllers for their SSDs.

 

So, your own table shows 3x greater life expectancy (at a mere 10GB / day...).

How is saying MLC > TLC 'misinformation'.

I agree that 20 years is a long time (but change the 10GB/day to a real workload for a storage subsystem and the numbers turn 'scary' real soon).


If nothing else; at the same cost the MLC drive is faster, 'should' last longer and you won't have to worry about how much work it does in the expected ownership lifetime of at least the original owner.

This is like saying you can have a Porsche or a VW - but the VW is better... come on!

 

I said it was moot because there are hardly days where a normal user surpass 10GB write. Chances are pretty big its much lower in average/day, which makes the life expectancy even greater than 23 years. Meaning its a non issue = Moot point.

I think many of those who work real workloads don`t buy their own drives either. They are funded by the workplace and do not buy TLC or MLC. They buy SLC which is the only NANDs that cut it.
For mainstream users, TLC or MLC are equally good. Buy whatever is cheapest/fastest.

 

That is one way to see it.

I see it that you're saying something to the effect that 'normal' people don't want the best available now (even if it is the same price).

I say always buy the best you can at the time of purchase (only smart thing to do really - no matter what the situation) and at this time it is overwhelmingly weighted towards MLC over TLC.

When (not if) TLC becomes the only 'new nand' available to purchase; we can have a conversation then about which will be the most desirable option.

Right now, at these low capacities TLC is a non-option if you know all the facts (even at a lower price).

 

Thanks everyone!!

 

Which, as always, is absolutely irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of people who use these drives.

 

No, your assumed usage method for the 'overwhelming majority of people' is simply your opinion...

Even if true, my other point(s), including always getting the best possible performance/value at any particular point in time still holds true.

I am often accused of being too much of a 'power user' and not relating to the 'common user' - but I think you and a few others here are going too far in the opposite direction at this time and with no real reason(s) given to defend this point of view. And at the complete disregard for any other data points.

Nothing exists in a vacuum - the sum is greater than the parts - but only if a clear headed decision is reached and acted upon.


Does the EVO technically excite me? Yes, of course it does - it is a marvel of modern engineering which surely points to the future of nand and SSD's which are 'coming soon'.

But that admiration doesn't cloud my eyes so much to see the deficiencies it has (especially at this capacity point) vs. the readily available MLC options with much better (real world) longevity, much better write speeds and proven track records - all at the same or lower price points.


Do we understand each other a little better now? I am not simply defending products here - I am showing (the OP) how to make a better decision. By using all the important factors that are relevant today.


Take care.

 

You keep right on thinking that.

 

Sigh...


you can lead a horse to knowledge, but you can't make him think...

 

There is no point in having MLC if it have no practical advantages for you. End of story. Nothing to discuss here.
I don`t care if I could buy a GPU that could last me 50 years. 99% of the hardware is replaced within 1-5 years anyway. Our SATA3 drives are replaced by much faster SSDs when SATA-Express is rolled out.
Say you buy a new notebook with a better SSD. You could keep that TLC SSD. Then maybe you`ll need it later for storage of your movies. TLC doesn`t degrade unless its written on the cells. Meaning you will have it for a long long time and could use it for future use. In fact, its superior in any way to a HDD in life expectancy.

Its a non exisiting issue. A moot point. Nothing to even think about.

 

Eh, much fuss over computer hardware... Almost as bad as the old Mac v PC debates...

(disclaimer, I bought my sister a TLC SSD, working fine for now. I just like MLC better, hence my comments)

 

HOW DARE YOU??!!?!

Nah just kidding. You are of course entitled to your own opinions. If I were given the choice of TLC and MLC and they all performed and cost the same, I`d buy MLC too. It is the better NAND like tiller explains. Theoretically of course. Its like buying 2133MHz DDR3 instead of 1600MHz. The improvements can not be seen since they do perform the same, although the 2133MHz is "faster".

If you know what I mean

 

There's a pretty obvious difference in the construction of SLC/MLC/TLC, though RAM clock speeds are very unimportant imo. I've played with a friend's Alienware 14 with high-clocked memory (1866MHz, iirc) and I felt absolutely no difference between that and my 1333MHz desktop/W520 RAM (and even slower RAM in the X61t). It was still a very snappy system, but he also had a SATA III SSD in it too (Samsung 830, iirc).

Only decent use I could think of for faster RAM for the average joe would be with iGPU performance boosts (when compared to slower RAM). Though even then, I'm not too convinced that it's worth the bother (I've seen HTWingNut's RAM tests awhile back).