Overclock.net banner

Crucial M500 960GB vs Samsung Electronics 840 EVO-Series 1TB ?

4K views 27 replies 8 participants last post by  Sean Webster 
#1 ·
Wondering which one is better and why?
 
#3 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by CynicalUnicorn View Post

Finally got rid of your M4, huh?
wink.gif
I'd get an M500 for durability. Massive drives are entirely bottlenecked by SATA III and you just won't get any benefits from the EVO's cache.
Hey Unicorn, glad to see you around. I hope you can clarify me some stuffs am really confused.

I just bugth an 960gb M500 Crucial.

May you explain me this. So there is those EVO SSD 1tb and these Crucial M500, I was reading a thread here in overclock.net of Benchs over SSD. Then i saw benchmarks on EVO SSD, Numbers on EVO SSD

look.



are so impressive meanwhile my SSD is this



I think im goin to return mine this is sick, i feel riped off.

also, this review put the M500 960gb version sometimes under the 480Gb version?
 
#5 ·
The first bench has some issues and might be Raid0. I know this issue with my Thinkpad. Its showing me 500 mb/s 4k 64Thrd write which is impossible on sata2 and 7000+ with a Samsung Evo on sata 3 is also impossible even with raid0. Its a software problem.

The second bench is made with microsoft standard sata drivers! So its your own bench? If so install the Intel ahci drivers (Intel rapid storage technology) and make sure ahci is enabled in the bios. It should atleast double all your scores!
 
#6 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sujeto 1 View Post

Hey Unicorn, glad to see you around. I hope you can clarify me some stuffs am really confused.

I just bugth an 960gb M500 Crucial.

May you explain me this. So there is those EVO SSD 1tb and these Crucial M500, I was reading a thread here in overclock.net of Benchs over SSD. Then i saw benchmarks on EVO SSD, Numbers on EVO SSD

look.


are so impressive meanwhile my SSD is this


I think im goin to return mine this is sick, i feel riped off.

also, this review put the M500 960gb version sometimes under the 480Gb version?
The Samsung Evo drive, through Samsung SSD Magician (their SSD software) caches your smaller files (when writing) to your dram (or otherwise, RAM, to be simplistic), and then over time, it writes that data onto the SSD. So you see inflated scores, but in reality, its just as slow, if not slower than most drives out there. It just uses the wickidly fast read/write capability of RAM to act as a buffer between the drive.

Basically, you can tell this from one simple fact. 6Gigabits = 768 Megabytes. Sequential files (large consecutive data) would most definitely be limited by 768 Megabytes/sec, but as you can see, it is using your RAM to cache (act as a buffer) between the data and the SSD.

Hence inflated Samsung Evo scores. Its a way to "cheat" benchmarks.

In terms of data security, the M500 would actually be the safer route, as you don't risk your data being lost in the buffer (cache to RAM in this case).
 
#8 ·
Oh really guys?? you are making me recovery from my suddenly rage-buyer remorse lol. Ok So is there nothign wrong with my SSD (crucial M500)? im goin to do the thing ahci as you mentioned Pandora.
 
#9 ·
A few years ago when the Samsung 830 SSD's came out they were the cream f the crop. I have 4 of them in 2 different laptops. Their performance has been exceptional. 100% Trouble free and very FAST. When it comes to SSD's I feel Samsung is one of if not the best SSD mfg. From what I understand the 840 EVO is a step forward in performance over the 830's which are still a fantastic performing SSD still to date. I personally though will be picking up 4 840 Pro's for my next build.
 
#10 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippyPinhead View Post

A few years ago when the Samsung 830 SSD's came out they were the cream f the crop. I have 4 of them in 2 different laptops. Their performance has been exceptional. 100% Trouble free and very FAST. When it comes to SSD's I feel Samsung is one of if not the best SSD mfg. From what I understand the 840 EVO is a step forward in performance over the 830's which are still a fantastic performing SSD still to date. I personally though will be picking up 4 840 Pro's for my next build.
Thanks but im not interest on advertisments rigth now. I have a problem and im trying to realize the solution.
tongue.gif
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sujeto 1 View Post

Oh really guys?? you are making me recovery from my suddenly rage-buyer remorse lol. Ok So is there nothign wrong with my SSD (crucial M500)? im goin to do the thing ahci as you mentioned Pandora.
Nope. That's just RAPID mode. It uses a RAM cache and really just inflates benchmarks. Only problem on your end is that you're plugged into a SATA II port. According to Newegg, your motherboard has two native Intel SATA III ports. Check your manual and plug it into one of those, but DO NOT USE THE MARVELL PORTS. They're fine for HDDs and ODDs, but they're crap quality and should never be used with SSDs.
 
#12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by CynicalUnicorn View Post

Nope. That's just RAPID mode. It uses a RAM cache and really just inflates benchmarks. Only problem on your end is that you're plugged into a SATA II port. According to Newegg, your motherboard has two native Intel SATA III ports. Check your manual and plug it into one of those, but DO NOT USE THE MARVELL PORTS. They're fine for HDDs and ODDs, but they're crap quality and should never be used with SSDs.
Why do you think im using SATA II? im using SATA III, im sure about it.
 
#14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by CynicalUnicorn View Post

Bigger SSDs are always faster than smaller drives. MLC drives are faster than TLC drives. My 250GB 840 on SATA II gets the same sequential speeds as your M500. They should be about 500MB/s for you if you are using an Intel SATA III port.
Unicorn, i realized that i was pluggin to the SATA II, i told you am a noob. I switched to the proper SATA III and this is what i got



It seems especially the SEQ got a big boost. Now why Acc-time got a bit worst? Im studing about the
 
#16 ·
Much better but still the driver is wrong. Not that the microsoft driver is bad but the Intel one could improve your performance aswell like I said before.

If you have the Intel drivers you can read it with AS SSD out. Like in the Samsung Evo bench you should see "iaStor - OK" and not "msahci - OK" as it in your case.
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandora51 View Post

Much better but still the driver is wrong. Not that the microsoft driver is bad but the Intel one could improve your performance aswell like I said before.

If you have the Intel drivers you can read it with AS SSD out. Like in the Samsung Evo bench you should see "iaStor - OK" and not "msahci - OK" as it in your case.
got it pandora, ahmm ok what should i do to use the Intel Drive, i downloaded and installed (trough Windows) a file called:

RSTe_and_AHCI_Drivers_GUI_CIM_CLI_3.8.0.1111_2013.09.26

Is that one, correct?

Now i don't find the way to make AS SSD says: iaStor
 
#18 ·
And this is my BIOS



I may guess ahci is activated
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandora51 View Post

Much better but still the driver is wrong. Not that the microsoft driver is bad but the Intel one could improve your performance aswell like I said before.

If you have the Intel drivers you can read it with AS SSD out. Like in the Samsung Evo bench you should see "iaStor - OK" and not "msahci - OK" as it in your case.
Ok Pand, i think i managed to install the Intel driver as you said. This are the result



Total Score got a bit better.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss View Post

your post = fail

http://techreport.com/review/25559/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-200tb-update

both TLC SSDs are 'more dead' than any of the MLC drives ^
After 100TB of writes they saw weakness, so if you write at least 10GB a day for 20 years, you will have a SSD problem? lol...

Says all SSDs checked out at 20GB/day for 3 years, so not sure how you see "MLC > TLC for durability"
3 year warranty on all Samsung SSDs anyways. If you have a SSD longer than 3 years at a high read/write volume, you have other problems...

Yes MLC last longer than TLC but the probability of someone seeing this problem is slim to none. Shouldn't even be considered when selecting a SSD.
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by dseg View Post

After 100TB of writes they saw weakness, so if you write at least 10GB a day for 20 years, you will have a SSD problem? lol...

Says all SSDs checked out at 20GB/day for 3 years, so not sure how you see "MLC > TLC for durability"
3 year warranty on all Samsung SSDs anyways. If you have a SSD longer than 3 years at a high read/write volume, you have other problems...

Yes MLC last longer than TLC but the probability of someone seeing this problem is slim to none. Shouldn't even be considered when selecting a SSD.
precisely what I said in the first place
rolleyes.gif


anyone can consider whatever they like when purchasing a SSD, even if it comes in a pretty pink case
biggrin.gif
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top