Crucial MX200 or Samsung 850 EVO (500Gb)?

Hi - am looking to buy a 500GB SSD to replace the HDD in an MSI GS60 2QE I'm looking to buy soon, the new models from Crucial (MX200) and Samsung (850 Evo) are starting to become available to order - which one of these would be better (not just speed, but long-term reliability)? Are there any other 7mm SATA SSDs worth considering? My budget is up to about £200 for a 500GB model.

 

While I haven't tested either of these drives, my vote would go to Crucial. Recent issues with previous TLC-based Samsung drives would make me nervous about the new EVO.

You may want to take a look at San Disk Extreme Pro as well.

My $0.02 only...

 

I can get a 500GB Crucial MX200 for about £195, a 480Gb San Disk Extreme Pro would be about £240+

Is the Sandisk a better drive and is it worth the extra £45+ ?

 

I happen to like the SanDisk. It's a well-proven top-tier SSD and also comes with a 10-year warranty.

Your quids to spend, though...

 

850 evo IMO. The 850 evo has 40nm lithography so endurance shouldn't be as limited as pre 850 evo. Or the sandisk as mentioned. But if money were not a limiting factor, I would vote 850 pro.

 

Do the Samsung 850 models have any of the problems that have plagued the 840 series drives or are they different tech?

 

It's *way* too early for us to know whether the new EVO suffers from the same or similar issues. Samsung's Pro series were not affected in the 840 generation and are likely a safe buy in the 850 one as well.

Having said that, I just RMA'd an 850 Pro. But that doesn't really mean anything. I've had SSDs from just about every major manufacturer fail.

Not from SanDisk, though. But - once again - that doesn't mean anything.

 

This review ( http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc...-ssd/sandisk-extreme-pro-480gb-1273852/review ) suggests that two potential issues with the San Disk Pro is that it has no power-loss protection or encryption, which I assume the MX200 and 850 Pro do? Not sure if that really matters for me, though if my laptop was stolen, not sure I like the idea of an encrypted drive (on the other hand I assume this would slow it down a bit?)

 

Your notebook/platform certainly deserves the SanDisk Extreme Pro or the Samsung 850 Pro to complement, max out and balance the system. How much RAM do you have? 16GB+ highly recommended.

How long (expected...) will you keep your system for? £45 over that time frame is really nothing.

As long as you're not going into debt for the £45 or for the total amount of £240 either...

 

I was under the impression that only Intel's SSD's have the power loss protection, although I'm not certain about that.

Either way, your notebook has a battery, right?

 

Yes, I agree with pukemon, go for 850 Pro, very nice drive but slightly pricier.

 

It comes with a single 8GB stick, but I was thinking of installing 2 x 8GB 1866Ghz Crucial Ballistix Sport ( http://uk.crucial.com/gbr/en/memory-ddr3/bls2c8g3n18aes4ceu ), which Crucial say is compatible with the MSI GS60 2QE

I'd probably keep the laptop for at least 3 years

 

I can get a 500GB Samsung 850 Pro for about £265, the 850 Evo can be pre-ordered for about £185, but I guess is a bit of an unknown quantity just yet

 

480GB Sandisk Extreme Pro is £224 from Amazon.. It's a great price for it.. if you keep a look out, you can get it cheaper too.. Here's one below on ebay which is sealed from the looks of it and completely new

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/B00KHRYRLY/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SanDisk-E...puting_Solid_State_Drives&hash=item43d71c8d27

 

If you can hold out wait for a sale to get the pro. I've been staring at my amazon cart for almost two months watching the 850 pro 512 go down from from $369USD to $326 as of this morning. I was kicking myself in the ass for not pulling the trigger last week @ $339 which only lasted a day. I was trying to get 2 for <$700 after tax. I finally succeeded @ ~$695 after tax. It was getting down to crunch time because my p770zm is still phase 1 and will be here hopefull y by early next week.

 

Pretty much looks like a tie between the 500Gb Samsung 850 Pro and 480GB Sandisk Extreme Pro for me - the latter is a bit cheaper, though looks like its a tiny bit slower, and doesn't support hardware encryption (does anyone know whether using this would impact performance majorly - if so, I probably wouldn't use it?)

 

Yes. Noticeably? No. I think every review I've read mentions hardware encryption affects performance less than 10%. I am provably not gonna encrypt my pros but when I migrate my OS from 2.5" SATA slot to m.2 SATA/pcie I probably will. The sandisk extreme pro is a great option still if you don't want to wait. Definitely worth it over the original options you suggested.

 

In the 512GB size class, the 480GB SanDisk Extreme Pro is easily the best drive for performance. The Samsung 850 Pro isn't number two. That would be the SanDisk Extreme II. Add the lower cost and it's win-win.
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/6628/samsung-850-pro-512gb-ssd-review/index8.html

 

Crucial added power loss protection beginning with the M500 model line.

 

I'm confused, you recommend the SaDisk Extreme Pro, but link to a glowing review of the Samsung 850 Pro - why do you consider the SanDisk Extreme Pro better?

 

In this comparison the Samsung 850 Pro beats the Sandisk Extreme Pro on pretty much everything (except price...):
http://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/SanDisk-Extreme-Pro-240GB-vs-Samsung-850-Pro-256GB/2356vs2385

I've read elsewhere than the Samsung 850 Pro also uses a little less power and runs a few degrees cooler than the Sandisk, which could be a factor in a laptop

 

Yes, but I think it's good to mention that it's only for data-at-rest, not for data in the SSD's DRAM buffer, they don't put tantalum capacitors in M/MX line as you find in enterprise grade SSDs. Better than nothing, though.

 

The page that is linked, the consistency test, shows "real world" results. For now, Steady State testing is the closest metric for giving consumers an idea how a drive might really perform in their workflow after it's actually been used. Empty drive benchmarks are meaningless for "real world" performance.

Other Samsung 850 Pro drives (128GB best, 256GB third, 1TB second) do much better in this test. The 512GB (fifth) does not. Note: high performance = blue bar in chart

Sure, it's a glowing review. It's a good drive. It's just not the top performer in this size class.

 

BTW those tests say they don't take into account the RAPID mode that the Samsung drive has - which apparently "enhances performance by processing data on a system level using free PC memory (DRAM) as a cache, providing 1.8 times faster performance in the RAPID mode" (from http://www.samsung.com/global/busin...isite/SSD/global/html/ssd850pro/overview.html ), though I understand this would only improve apparent write speeds.

 

RAPID mode is really fraudulent.. It helps in benchmarking but in day to day use, it's nonsence and actually causes problems etc... Honestly, ignore any reviews or benchmarks which involve the 850 pro results including RAPID mode...

 

Good to know! Rep'd.

 

Though as another poster says, I suppose this doesn't matter if it's in a laptop, as the battery will shut things down safely before it turns itself off when out of juice

Looks like I can get a 480Gb Sandisk Extreme Pro for about £200, with a bit of hunting around, which is about £65 less than a 512Gb Samsung 850 Pro, so I guess the Sandisk would be the more sensible choice if performance is very close.

BTW how come the Sandisk has 32Gb less storage than the Samsung - is that because it already factors in over-provisioning?

 

This feature saved me from a bunch of RMA request from bricked SSD from other vendors.
Something minor like a forced shutdown or a failing power regulator was enough to enable secure lock flag with a gibberish password.
Rare but does happen.

Though paying for an Enterprise SSD that have it doesn't really mean much. Just less likely to occur.

 

Here's a link to the 850 Pro 1TB tested with RAPID and without.
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/64...d-review-the-new-performance-king/index7.html
Notice the performance improvement in heavy usage (high performance) with RAPID disabled.

 

There is no reliability in SSD, only warranty. With new controller/nand tech around every corner, there just aren't enough time passed to know if they are "reliable".

Endurance (not the same as reliability) was never a concern for consumer drives.

 

Basically. It's a factory OP. You can't get it back. The consumer could and likely should OP the 850 Pro. It would be closer to the Extreme Pro in steady state performance.

 

Samsung 850 EVO with 5 yr warranty or 850 Pro with 10 year warranty.



Cheers
3Fees

 

Sandisk Extreme Pro carries the 10-year warranty as well...

 

850 pro for power savings and encryption. If not necessary, save a few bucks and get sandisk.

 

Sandisk Extreme Pro already has built in OPing as said before.. Get it if you don't need encryption.. otherwise 850 pro.. Don't get anything with TLC junk like the 850 evo plz..

 

Yeah, it's just the Sandisk Extreme Pro or Samsung 850 Pro I'm considering now, unless perhaps the Crucial MX200 turns out to be even better, but I doubt it'll be better than these two

 

While I think it would be wise to wait for more reviews and user data before recommending the 850 Evo, I think it is very premature to just dismiss it as "TLC junk". The TLC NAND in drives like the 840 EVO had issues, but it *appears* they have been resolved in the 850 EVO by the move to 40nm 3-D NAND. The 3-D NAND itself might carry increased risk since it is brand new, but at this point, I don't think we can just lump it in with the previous TLC drives.

 

When that TLC nand (even 'new' 3D nand...) is associated with Samsung then, yeah, until proven otherwise it is TLC junk.

What makes this hard to take any other way is the dismissive attitude by Samsung for the original TLC 840 drive, which they offer no fix for or, even acknowledge an issue with. If the 850EVO turns out to be another 'plain' 840, it will take a year of use before the issue crops up for those users. Easier to stop buying TLC period (and I mean from all manufacturers too) and force them to fix it once and for all.

 

Crucial does a lot well, no doubt, good performance, reliability and value. Crucial has a lot of ground to make up if they want to compete in the high performance area. Their focus is still value first with the MX200.
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/42627/crucial-unleashes-mx200-bx100-solid-state-drives-ces/index.html

SanDisk shows improving high performance and performance consistency generation after generation in the Extreme line. Add that to reliability and competitive pricing (on sale), again value.

Samsung (with the 850 Pro) improved in true performance (steady state) and not just being the king of meaningless empty drive benchmarks. Reliability has been there for Samsung as well, though the TLC issue and this 3D is new. Unfortunately, the Pro doesn't compete in pricing.

 

I was on the fence with 850 evo and pro. I think the 40nm evo will fare better. At the very least in durability. But it's not proven. Neither is the 3D NAND in general. I ended up going with 2 pro's because the 840 and 850 pro hardly have any bad reviews. Mostly just the rare dud. It happens as with any product. And sustained performance is spectacular with the 850 pro.

 

Samsung is, definitely, a smart company with their SSDs. The 840 Pro ate empty drive benchmarks alive. That was almost the only testing being done at the time on review sites. Steady State testing was new. A couple of sites showed the Pro wasn't a pro at all, in high performance (sustained performance). To Samsung's credit, they improved where they were weak (not RAID0 yet) and the consumer benefits.

 

I'm not sure if it's factory OP or it's spare area; for example, Crucial M500 came with 480GB, but this (512-480)isn't factory OP, but:

You'll notice that Crucial uses SandForce-like capacity points with the M500. While the m4/C400 had an industry standard ~7% of its NAND set aside as spare area, the M500 roughly doubles that amount. The extra spare area is used exclusively for RAIN and to curb failure due to NAND defects, not to reduce write amplification. Despite the larger amount of spare area, if you want more consistent performance you're going to have to overprovision the M500 as if it were a standard 7% OP drive.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6884/crucial-micron-m500-review-960gb-480gb-240gb-120gb/2

 

And TweakTown says:
"SanDisk went with three capacity sizes for the Extreme PRO: 240GB, 480GB, and 960GB. These are overprovisioned capacity numbers. Each drive has flash area reserved for background activity like garbage collection and other flash management tasks." Basically, the same. An area you can't use.
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/6471/sandisk-extreme-pro-240gb-ssd-review/index.html
It won't hurt to OP further for SE Pro, M500 or 850 Pro

 

Indeed the MX200 competes when it comes to price and not performance..

Sandisk does exactly as you say

As for the 850 Pro, it uses 3D MLC Nand so it doesn't use the TLC junk... Whichever way when it comes to price, it's no way near how cheap the Extreme Pro is and once your remove CRAPID and the fake advantage it gives, for the small extra advantage, it's just not worth the price..

 

I'm not sold on 3D V-nand or whatever marketing calls it, more time is needed to determine its reliability and performance down the road. I can see that sandisk drives are great, crucial is also a good price/performance+feature SSD, so M550 or Sandisk Extreme gets my vote. No samsung.

 

Sandisk has started using something layered in their micro SD cards. Intel is using 3d transistors. I think the 3d v NAND will be fine. I think TLC will come into it's own eventually but the cheap apple iPhone 6 and TLC debacle made me decide to get the pro.

 

You may have already bought, but I have the sandisk extreme pro 480gb (along with 7 other ssds). I also have the crucial mx200. Benchmarks aside, you wont be able to tell them apart in normal use. My sandisk extreme pro started going bad after 6-7 months use, 8 bad sectors which corrupted windows, reinstalled, then 23 bad sectors corrupted windows again....but it is not bad enough to rma (has to have more bad sectors, still passes sandisk test), but it is unusable for my purpose after 2 windows corruptions. I dont know about sandisk reliabilty as they are newer to the market, but in the large published french survey in 2012, intel and crucial were around 1% rmas, more recently samsung claims 1% returns. Out of my 7 ssds dating back to first intel, only sandisk has any "bad sectors" by HD sentinel, but just n of 1, so meaningless in grand scheme. But sandisk extreme pro benches well...though again cant tell difference in any of them in 24/7 use. I also like the partial power loss protection/data corruption protection on crucial, and after the recent annoyance, Im more partial to known reliability figures than benches.

But here is sandisk extreme pro AS SSD bench:
http://s3.postimg.org/cu78rjrn7/sandiskexpro.jpg

vs crucial mx200 AS SSD:
http://s8.postimg.org/ts8umyddx/mx200.jpg


and here is drive health in one of my builds.
http://s15.postimg.org/xmf4aqr17/sandiskfail.jpg

 

That's strange.. It appears that your drive is faulty.. I would RMA it and tell them that windows is being corrupted etc.

 

I would go with Crucial MX200.
Here are some article that may help.
Comparison between MX200 and M550
http://www.techwarn.com/crucial-mx200-vs-m550-review/

and

Comparison between BX100 and MX100
http://www.techwarn.com/crucial-bx100-vs-mx100-review/

 

CRAPID it is indeed. The biggest useless marcketing gimmick that offers me 0 real world performance difference. Only cheating benchmarks and cheating one's self by making them think a copy operation finished while it is actually still copying from the RAM to the actual SSD in the background so if one reboots or shuts down before it is doing what it is doing ......the data is lost...

3D NANd.....another useless gimmick.......I didn't feel one bit of a difference between my previous 840 PRO and the 3D NAND 850 PROs in terms of performance. Seems Samsung is now focusing on marketing BS rather than on actual real world performance.