1TB Crucial MX500 2.5" 3D NAND SATA III Internal Solid State Drive Expired

all MX500 drives been downgraded and only 512MB DRAM Cache instead of 1GB per TB like previously

Also changed NAND
https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin...?context=3

It's important to note that there are a couple different, distinct types of cache that SSDs can have. There's DRAM (or HMB) and pSLC. Many people mistakenly believe they serve the same purpose. They play different roles.

DRAM is optional and even drives that do have it can have different ratios. The ideal amount is 1GB DRAM per 1TB NAND. DRAM is primarily used to store a copy of the mapping table (FTL). This is used to keep track of where data is stored in the NAND. DRAM is much faster than NAND. DRAM-less drives have to constantly access the FTL directly from the NAND. Having DRAM can substantially boost performance and should help increase the longevity of the drive. DRAM is NOT a write cache!

Some NVMe drives have a feature called Host Memory Buffer (HMB) that uses system memory as a substitute for DRAM. This is less ideal than the drive itself having DRAM but far better than nothing. SATA SSDs can not support HMB.

The pSLC cache is the write buffer. Virtually all modern consumer drives have this, whether they advertise it or not. It runs a portion of the MLC/TLC/QLC in pseudo-SLC mode, allowing for very fast writes. Once the cache is filled, write speed can drop off a cliff, sometimes as low as single-digit MB/s. How much it drops varies a LOT, depending on the design of the drive. Cheap, DRAM-less, and/or QLC drives tend to take the biggest hit. Some higher end SATA drives may see little to no drop in speed.

The implementation of this cache also varies greatly. Some drives use a potentially small static pSLC cache, that will always hold the same amount. Many use a dynamic pSLC cache, which shrinks as the drive gets fuller. Even these can vary greatly in their size. Depending on the implementation, the pSLC cache can range from a few GBs to hundreds of GBs.

Having explained all that, the question becomes, which cache are you asking about? As far as DRAM is concerned, the Samsung 870 EVO has the ideal amount at 1TB+. The Crucial MX500 is still ideal at up to 500GB. Even though the larger models now only have 512MB, they'll still probably perform well. I'm not sure there are any other compelling choices in the SATA arena.

As far as the pSLC cache goes, it's a different story. Quality drives, like the 870 EVO and MX500, tend to only have moderately sized pSLC caches. Cheap, DRAM-less drives can be all over the place, anywhere from tiny to enormous. Even ones with a huge pSLC cache will quickly be overtaken by the quality drives, once the cache is exhausted.

That was sort of a long-winded way of recommending the Crucial MX500 or Samsung 870 EVO (if you can find the new revision). Also, don't put much stock in old reviews of drives. Many have changed hardware over time.

prob won't fit in the SATA slot though