4 ms·
Their MX500 series SSDs were just king of price, performance and reliability. I even installed them in industrial PCs with intense vibrations and large temperat
by RedShift1 10mo ago
Their MX500 series SSDs were just king of price, performance and reliability. I even installed them in industrial PCs with intense vibrations and large temperature cycles, they're still chugging along like it's nothing.
- tkfoss 10mo agoJust bought one last week, sadly not many options left for 2.5" SSDs
- deltoidmaximus 10mo agoI've been reduced to buying samsung 970 evos. The supply of DRAM supporting SATA SSDs has really dried up.
- Felger 10mo agoAgreed, the first gen MX500 with M3CR023 fw proved IMHO to be the second most reliable SATA SSD 2.5" form factor with the Samsung 860 range SSDs (860 Evo / Pro). Sadly, the MX500 is now difficult to find in western europe. Only lower grade BX500, still quite reliable but not as fast as the MX500 with cache + DRAM. Had quite a lot of controller issues (become sluggish for periods of time) with the sandisk/WD ones like green/blue and SSD plus.
- tuetuopay 10mo agoHuh, I've had the opposite experience with the BX500. Hit a bit hard on them and the SSD drops off the bus. Or fill them up to 80% and witness them crawl to a stop. Dirt cheap drives, but don't ask too much of them.
- Felger 10mo agoI wrote the BX500 ils easier to find than the MX500, not that it is better. Obviously the BX is worse than the MX, having no SLC cache.
- tuetuopay 10mo agoOh I never said you wrote it's better, your message is quite clear :) Just that I would not really compare the two. The BX500 is the only Crucial SSD I've ever had troubles with and kinda eroded my trust in the brand. My >10 years old M4 is still working like a champ, so does my MX200. DRAM-less SSDs are a plague that is very hard to avoid, as it's never mentioned in the spec sheets.