crucial m500 vs samsung evo

[flimsy]

In a real world environment would you notice an actual difference between a slower crucial and a faster samsung evo? The reviews love the samsung but it seems at least to me that crucial maybe built to last long in a working environment. This makes me curious, and I want to enter the ssd world.

 

[Charlie98]

They are both SSD's with very good potential. No, you probably wouldn't notice a real-world difference in everyday computing between the two. You can add to that a number of other highly rated SSD's too... Intel, Plextor...

 

[Cerb]

The M500 takes well to nasty random workloads with mixed reads and writes, and is an excellent low-end business/server drive, but you're not going to maintain a filled queue long enough to matter on a desktop, or in a notebook.

With graphs starting at 0, you can clearly see the differences are too small to notice, 99% of the time. To even chance being able to feel a difference, you'll need 10-20% differences, if not much, much more, and/or some performance fragility (such as with the 840 non-Evo, many SF drives, etc.).

 

[gamerboy]

Here is a comparison of the two in the 240/250 gig category:

http://ssd-comparison.whoratesit.com/Compare/Crucial-M500-240GB-vs-Samsung-840-Evo-250GB/1551vs1594

 

[mrpiggy]

M500 has power reserve capacitor's built onto the SSD, the Samsung does not. The Samsung benchmarks faster. What's more important to you? Speed or power-loss data protection? If you use a UPS, then pure speed is nice. If you don't then you might want some built-in power-loss protection as sudden power losses adversely affect SSD's even worse than HD's if they happen at inopportune moments.

 

[saratoga172]

I have an M500 and notice no difference in speed from the M4's I used before it. You won't notice a difference between it and the Evo's. The M500 was built a little more for heavier work loads but both will last a long time for you.

Get whichever is cheaper. Can't go wrong with either.

 

[bonehead123]

M500 has power reserve capacitor's built onto the SSD, the Samsung does not. The Samsung benchmarks faster. What's more important to you? Speed or power-loss data protection? If you use a UPS, then pure speed is nice. If you don't then you might want some built-in power-loss protection as sudden power losses adversely affect SSD's even worse than HD's if they happen at inopportune moments.

^^^ this....pay attention people

 

[sub.mesa]

M500 has power reserve capacitor's built onto the SSD, the Samsung does not. [..] If you use a UPS, then pure speed is nice. If you don't then you might want some built-in power-loss protection as sudden power losses adversely affect SSD's even worse than HD's if they happen at inopportune moments.

Very true. However, you seem to imply that when using an Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS) you do not need capacitor protection. This is, however, not true.

A UPS prevents power from going down in most cases. But the problem is much deeper than that. The SSD must receive a command (ATA standby immediate) signalling the power goes out soon. If it doesn't get that command in time and the SSD loses power, it could be damaged beyond detection or fail at that very point or be affected by data corruption.

In fact, power failures are quite rare, but unexpected power-loss is not. You can have zero power failures, but hundreds of unexpected power-loss on your SSD. Check it yourself: use CrystalDiskInfo on your SSD and look for Unexpected Power Loss. Good SSDs have that attribute in the SMART data.

In some cases, all shutdowns are counted as unexpected power loss. That was a known issue in some versions of Windows and some versions of Mac OSX. In those situations, all shutdowns bring the risk of damaging your SSD. Even though the chance is not very great, the high frequency of power interruptions might cause the SSD to fail much sooner.

 

[philipma1957]

Okay so the crucial should be more durable. these crucial don't have that 5000 hour bug like the m4's did do they? I am thinking I will put the samsung I'm my system as I have lots of redundant backups. I will put the crucial in a build for a friend he wants a 1 drive small build . so the more reliable ssd should go to him. thanks for info

 

[mrpiggy]

Very true. However, you seem to imply that when using an Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS) you do not need capacitor protection. This is, however, not true.

A UPS prevents power from going down in most cases. But the problem is much deeper than that. The SSD must receive a command (ATA standby immediate) signalling the power goes out soon. If it doesn't get that command in time and the SSD loses power, it could be damaged beyond detection or fail at that very point or be affected by data corruption.

In fact, power failures are quite rare, but unexpected power-loss is not. You can have zero power failures, but hundreds of unexpected power-loss on your SSD. Check it yourself: use CrystalDiskInfo on your SSD and look for Unexpected Power Loss. Good SSDs have that attribute in the SMART data.

In some cases, all shutdowns are counted as unexpected power loss. That was a known issue in some versions of Windows and some versions of Mac OSX. In those situations, all shutdowns bring the risk of damaging your SSD. Even though the chance is not very great, the high frequency of power interruptions might cause the SSD to fail much sooner.

Yeah, it's known that the SSD experiences all sorts of resultant power losses depending on the OS (such as un-clean shutdowns), however it's much easier to equate the explanation as UPS vs no-UPS to most people especially on places like this where people generally just want to know "what's-the-fastest? Data-integrity-be-damned" .

 

[Soulkeeper]

I guess crucial is waiting for the next big thing to update.

M500 has been around for what 16 months now ?

 

[Modular]

Okay so the crucial should be more durable. these crucial don't have that 5000 hour bug like the m4's did do they? I am thinking I will put the samsung I'm my system as I have lots of redundant backups. I will put the crucial in a build for a friend he wants a 1 drive small build . so the more reliable ssd should go to him. thanks for info

What's this 5000 hour bug?

 

[sequoia464]

What's this 5000 hour bug?

The earlier firmware had a bug that would cause issues with the drive as it hit 5000 usage hours. It was fixed fairly promptly with a firmware update.

I have 3 M4's, this just reminded me to check a 256gb drive that I have. I updated my 128's quite a while back.

I don't actually remember now what the problems were (as I didn't experience them) but Crucial did seem to solve the matter fairly quickly.

 

[WilliamM2]

Okay so the crucial should be more durable. these crucial don't have that 5000 hour bug like the m4's did do they? I am thinking I will put the samsung I'm my system as I have lots of redundant backups. I will put the crucial in a build for a friend he wants a 1 drive small build . so the more reliable ssd should go to him. thanks for info

Your friend doesn't have backups? Sounds like he doesn't care about reliability.

 

[sub.mesa]

The 5000-hour bug was present in early firmwares of the Crucial M4 SSD. The M500 doesn't have this bug and appears to have a low failure rate. However, the same is true for some other SSDs. The M500 just has an edge over its current mainstream competitors when it comes to data protection.