Crucial M550 still the best

Hey guys,

I recently bought a crucial M550 512GB to put in my P35X V3 CF7 when it arrives.

Even though the MX100, MX200 and BX100 have been recently released, according to benchmarks, the M550 still came out on top. Sometimes marginally and sometimes significantly so.

The advantage of the MX100 and the BX100 was that they were significantly cheaper (~170 euros) as compared to the M550, which always costed ~250 euros in the netherlands. However, I was lucky enough to find a new one here for only 179 euros! I immediately bought it!

I find it strange that a 2(?) Year old SSD is still faster than its newer and 'improved' counterparts.

What are your thoughts on this?

Sent from my GT-I9300

 

The 100/200 models are budget offerings from Crucial, so they sit lower on the price scale, which is reflected in the stated performance figures.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

The M550 is less than one year old and took over top spot in the Crucial range from the M500 which was announced nearly 2 years ago but took some months to be widely available.

John

 

Benchmark figures are just numbers and in real life situation I can not tell any difference between them.

 

So out of the mx100, bx100 and m550 at ~175 euros the m550 is the best to get?

Sent from my GT-I9300

 

I have a Crucial M550 mSATA (SATA III) in my desktop which I am pleased with so far. As for benchmarks the Crucial looks faster 'on paper' versus my older Intel x-25M (SATA II) however in day-to-day applications they seem to perform similarly. YMMV.

 

The M550 is NOT the best, the Micron M600 is currently the best.

 

Define best?

Sent from my 306SH

 

That would be my pick.

While that may very well be the case, its price also seems to be significantly higher than M550 as well.

 

No the Sandisk Extreme pro is the best! All other SSD's suck monkey balls... ... My Extreme II is 2nd best

 

Do you have a source for the benchmarks regarding the m550, mx100, mx200 and bx100?

Would these results corelate with the mSATA models too?

Sent from my XT1049 using Tapatalk

 

Hardwareinfo UK i beleive compared the newer mx200 and bx100 to the old m550 and their other ssds they already have benchies from. Just google it

Sent from my GT-I9300

 

Arthedes is actually correct
http://www.myce.com/review/crucial-mx200-500gb-ssd-review-75072/real-world-tests-7/

 

Copy Tests from a RAM disk... uh huh, very real world... sigh...

A better test would be copying the files from one folder to another on the same SSD.

Concurrent read/writes is what real world is. Not copying Office install files to a RAM disk to see how fast they can be installed to the SSD.

Oh well, let's say the MX200 is better, until some real testing comes around.

 

Any more thoughts on this?

Sent from my GT-I9300

 

Well my thoughts would be too screw all of these and get the Sandisk Extreme Pro SSD's... They go on sale often and price is only slightly more.. Performance, running temperature wise, they're much better products overall!

 

Unless you're doing professional work (editing, programming, etc), it doesn't matter what you get.

I've tried a bunch of different SSDs, and in my use (gaming, light office work, email, web browsing) it makes no difference whatsoever.

There's a lot of talk on this forum about how great certain SSDs are, but you have to take all that with a huge grain of salt - for day-to-day tasks and gaming, the difference in actual, end-user performance between most SSDs is not that noticeable. Now there are extremes of course, and some models are complete junk, while others are top-notch performers. But on average, in my experience, I've yet to notice any difference, no matter which SSD I'm using.

Why spend $300 on a "top" SSD when a budget SSD at $150 will get you the same experience/performance? Unless you can actually tell the difference in your usage (and not benchmarks), then spending then extra money makes no sense.

 

Uh oh...



HERE'S TILLER!

 

See:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1512915/...ed-to-confirm-affected-ssds/400#post_23669608

Look at the junk drive at $150 on sale running flat out at 26MB/s and the same drive temporarily fixed running at 538MB/s.

That is the why.


In case you need further proof that you normally get what you pay for...

See:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1512915/...ed-to-confirm-affected-ssds/420#post_23697667

I won't spoil it for you... click the link to see the horror yourself.


If the issues above don't show up on 'normal' peoples radar... what can I say (politely)?

If you're the kind of person who thinks others are stupid/too rich/idiots for spending extra money on things that you can seemingly get for cheaper, I'm happy to not know you personally.


The above examples are to show you an obviously crippled drive.

Your post says "Unless you can actually tell the difference in your usage (and not benchmarks)..." and you're right.

But the point of my post is that performance differences don't need (or can even be shown) by benchmarks. Simply using different ones (long) enough is sufficient to have a preference. And that preference will always be the fastest drive with the least latency.

In that light, your post should be taken with a huge grain of salt - as you are obviously not attuned to the differences you say don't exist, but actually do for more experienced or otherwise more perceptive people.

 

To be fair, if Ramzay has tried a bunch of different SSDs and he couldn't tell the difference between them according to his workflow, then at least for him there's no pointing spending extra on the SSD as long as he avoids TLC SSDs for now. The original M500 can be had for plenty cheap, and is still a solid MLC drive.

 

tiller SSD Sense >9000 2 OP plz nerf

 

I am a fairly heavy user and still have yet to tell much difference between the Transcend M.2 or Sandisk Extreme Pro or Samsung XP941 or Crucial M500. Unless you do heavy writes frequently there is little to no perceived difference between them. Whether they are throttling or not performing "to spec" is a whole different story, but in the end, who cares? If you do heavy writes, then look at an enterprise class drive. Even SLC if it's that important to you. I'll spend what I have to when it comes to being productive, but when it comes to casual to mid-range use, pretty much any SSD will do.

 

And the point (or at least part of the point) of my post was that end-user experience and perception are all that really matter. Not sure how you glossed over that, and felt the need to post if your point was the same as mine.

My Crucial MX100 does just fine with browsing the web, watching Netflix, working in Excel and playing some Diablo 3. About as well as whatever random "junk"PNY SSD is in my wife's laptop, or the ADATA in my smaller 14" laptop. Real-world experience and performance are roughly the same.

Well, if you feel the need to respond with thinly-veiled insults any time somebody expresses opinion contrary to yours, backed up by their own personal real-world experiences (and backed up by other poster's experiences as well), it's quite a testament to the type of person you are. Good to have you on these forums.

Your striking tendency to pick and choose elements of a post that suit your needs, find some niche examples to support your point of view (such as finding some really bad drives that perform poorly and assuming those drives were the "cheap" drives I was talking about) is really quite entertaining. You pretty much failed at reading my post in its entirely and synthesizing it. Why would you assume the very worst drives were what I was talking about, when I explicitly made an exception for them?

But I'll lend a hand (feeling generous today).

Things I mentioned/acknowledged in my previous post that you glossed over/didn't get
1) There are some really bad/good drives that will probably show differences even in moderate/normal every day use
2) Some professional users/applications will very likely see differences between even a "decent" and a "very good" drive
3) As long as end-user experience is the same, there's no real justification to buy the more expensive drive

Now, you may have quoted #3 above, but you clearly didn't understand it. Because it pretty much makes your entire post pointless and needless (this is the part where I'm not sure about your level of reading comprehension and ability to synthesize information). Because if you notice a difference in your usual tasks, you should get a more expensive/better drive, a fact acknowledged by point 3. Conversely, if the $50 SSD and the $150 SSD provide you the same end-user experience, why buy the more expensive one? In case you didn't know this, things such as speed, latency, durability and lifespan all form part of the user experience.

Now, maybe it's the lack of sleep, the fact I'm on my first coffee, or the fact English is my second language, but I'm not sure I really get the point of your post. Pretty much all the "proof" or "examples" you put forth were very well covered in my post - I had made special mention/exceptions for them.

Did you just feel like typing out stuff and insulting people for the fun of it? Maybe I need to apologize for being part of the majority of people who use their laptops for more mundane tasks, and for whom a super-fast, top-end drive won't make Youtube stream any faster or help Excel calculate their formulas better relative to a more "mainstream" and cheaper alternative.

 

Glad to see the point of my post was not lost on everybody. I initially thought I had made quite clear that heavy/professional users would probably notice a difference, and I was referring to more "normal" and casual use, with a focus on end-user experience. Tiller's response had me doubting either a) whether I had made my point clear enough or b) his reading comprehension.

See, I have no clue whether or not my SSDs perform up to their stated specifications, because I don't care. They all load up games just as fast, web browsing is the same, typing up reports in Word is the same. Were I engaged in professional tasks requiring high levels of performance from my SSDs, I would very likely care a whole lot more.

 

Exactly. It's like if your car wasn't running as much torque as it should, most people who just drive to work and back every day wouldn't even know or care. A car enthusiast will probably tell you all the things you should do or engines you should avoid because they are known to not quite perform up to manufacturer's claims, but in reality it doesn't matter.

 

So if I'm just an average user, which SDD would be good value for money?

Sandisk Extreme pro 480gb (310USD)
Samsung 850 pro 512gb (310 USD)
MX100 512 gb (200 USD)

 

MX100 512GB.

 

A storage subsystem does not differentiate itself for average and other users. It is REQUIRED to run a modern platform.

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

The SanDisk Extreme Pro 480GB is at the top of this heap right now.

 

The other drives cost 50% more than the MX100. So the answer to your question depends on whether or not you'd see a 50% increase in performance in the tasks you usually perform.

 

Cost is not the primary criteria for a system critical component. Reliability, dependability and longevity are.

The other factors such as increase in performance vs. increase in costs come into play when all other things are equal.

What does saving even $1M become the decisive factor when reliability goes out the window (and along with that comes at least a 10x increase over the savings to fix the problem (again) ).

 

On that point, the MX100 is cheaper... It also brings it's own set of problems... I just had to help a friend disable write caching because the MX100 was crashing.. also the last time I had MX100 in the Asus G73JH, it didn't fit properly due to the height difference and the computer kept BSODing.. I wasted so much time/money selling and having the laptop shipped back to me... For my uses, the MX100 is just not reliable enough..

Agreed.. The Extreme II has not failed for me for a single day..I didn't get the weird crashing lockups which I got from my Crucial C300 SSD.. Even after murdering it over the last year (written 4TB or so over the last year), it's still at 99% health... You get what you pay for at the end of the day.. The Sandisk also has 10 years warranty.. Sure it's more expensive but I rather spend the extra and get that.. If you can't afford it, you can't go wrong with MX100 but I can so I will get the Extreme Pro!

 

But Tom, your friend's example is a sample size of exactly n=1 (hence the origin of my username), he could've gotten a dud (happens to every manufacturer, hell one of my Extreme Pros came with 2 bad sectors!), he might've done something wrong blah blah. Without knowing any more details we can't just say conclusively it's a problem with the SSD itself. More to the point there's also the n=1 issue And that height difference is a physical compatibility issue, and is as much to blame on the G73 as it is on the MX100. Calling that a reliability issue is a bit.... disingenuous no?

Unless one has sampled hundreds of SSDs over a 5 year period, or can find statistics of that sort, I really think we should refrain from making claims with regards to reliability and longevity.

The other point to consider is whether that extra hypothetical longevity even matters. If one upgrades their SSD every 2-3 years, then a 10 year warranty is hardly going to be useful, and is simply extra money down the drain.

 

Nothing to be fair about here. Right is right. One example that shows flawed logic is all it takes to disprove a 'theory'. At least how I learned science.

And as I showed, workflow has nothing to do with getting a properly made/spec'd component vs. one that simply saves you cash.

Not ganging up on Ramzay, just trying to provide a bit clearer logic to the issue of 'worth'.

 

Specifically with regards to the MX100, the MU02 firmware was just released about a week back, so it remains to be seen whether it was simply a firmware issue. This is all too reminiscent of the cold boot issue the old M4 had, which was solved by a firmware update IIRC. So I wouldn't rule it out just yet.

 

I'm not sure if it's all in my head, but my M500 feels much snappier after updating the firmware earlier today.

 

What version were you on and what version are you on now?

 

If you ask me, they all seem about the same in the real world.

 

MU03 to MU05.

 

Hey guys I have a question .

I just ordered a crucial m550 1tb ssd to replace my 1tb spinning hdd in my laptop.
The only thing on my origonal hdd is my steam games and nothing else. Could I just plug the crucial drive into a usb port with adapter and format the ssd and simply copy over the files from my hdd to the ssd and just swap the drives. ?
I could see needing to clone the drive if it was my c:/ drive but it's pretty much just a storage drive .
Or do I actually have to clone the drive in my laptop before I can swap it out.

Also if I pull out my d:/ drive and install another hdd in its place that has already been formatted will it show up as d:/ drive also .? . Thanks

 

Not a problem that I can see (except I know nothing about steam gaming).

Maybe do the swap the other way around, install the new SSD into the computer, format it, then plug the HDD into USB and copy over.

This way you know everything is working alright.

 

Well this write caching freeze crap has happened to quite a few people.. A lot of complaints are ther eon the forum... It's working perfectly fine now with it being disabled.. I'm gonna have him update the firmware and get back to me about any improvements....

 

I think you have it right Player2. Just copy all your files from your hdd to your new SSD, then replug in. As long as drive letters are same it should work without a hitch.

 

Being as I'm replacing my internal drive with ssd I was planing to use my old internal drive as a backup storage drive and I was googling around and looking on amazon for a case for it so it's not a bare drive. All the cases I found adapted the hdd to usb 3.0 . Does anyone know we're I can just get a case that leaves the original SATA 3 connector that's already on the drive. The other cases make the drive way longer than it has to be by adding the adapter on the hdd.
I already have the cable that goes from usb 3.0 to 2.5 inch SATA 3 .
Just curious.

 

Nope. Those USB to SATA cable adapters are basically just for doing a transfer of data. You will need an enclosure with the USB 3.0 adapter. They're only about an inch longer than the drive, if that.

 

Thanks for reply ht.
That's what I thought but wasn't quite sure. But now I know.
Can anyone recomend a good one or does anyone use these.
If there is a thread on this topic already I'm sorry for posting in this one and maybe someone could direct me thanks.

 

SilverStone Raven RVS02. ASMedia chipset, UASP ready. There are others.

EDIT: Just checked, Raven prices are way high right now. Inatek might be a good alternative.

 

I've ordered this one from amazon for my 500GB WD 7200rpm drive.. It's about £7 cheaper then the Silverstone and is UASP ready too.. Amazon US has it too from the looks of it...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00GYLDD...m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=0KA6WBG1DF1FERC5GPN3

 

Yesterday I ordered two of inatek hdd cases . When I get them I will let you guys know what I think of them.

Also I just got off work and my new m550 1tb drive was at the post office. Yeah.
I removed my d:/ drive and installed it there . I formatted it and set it to be d:/ also.
So far so good.
I then plugged my old d:/ hdd into a usb using a usb to SATA 3 cable.
Then I just dragged and dropped the root directory of my old hdd to the new ssd and it is now in the middle of copying everything from one drive to the other.
It's 755 gigs so it will Probally take a while. Any way in theory I'm hoping it will just work the same as the drive that was in there just a lot faster. Will let you guys know when it's done copying over everything.

 

Masscool makes some good enclosures. When I finally get around to a m.2 and dumping my np5160 I will have one or two extra. 3 is too much to juggle currently.

 

It finally finished copying everything over from my hdd to my new ssd. And I can say it works perfectly. It works as if my old hdd was still in my laptop except way better. No fancy cloning software required. Easiest drive swap I have ever done . Now to play around with it and enjoy ssd goodnes.