Did this coupon
work for you?
work for you?
Post Date | Sold By | Sale Price | Activity |
---|---|---|---|
03/12/24 | Amazon | $210 |
15 |
10/10/23 | Amazon | $165 frontpage |
17 |
07/11/23 | B&H Photo Video | $165 frontpage |
27 |
06/04/23 | Amazon | $209.99 |
0 |
03/18/23 | Best Buy | $209 frontpage |
52 |
03/12/23 | Amazon | $219.99 |
6 |
01/15/23 | Amazon | $240 frontpage |
34 |
12/11/22 | Amazon | $237.99 |
0 |
06/14/22 | Newegg | $33.99 |
2 |
Rating: | (4.7 out of 5 stars) |
Reviews: | 97,755 Amazon Reviews |
Product Name: | Crucial MX500 4TB 3D NAND SATA 2.5 Inch Internal SSD, Mechanical Hard Disk up to 560MB/s - CT4000MX500SSD1 |
Manufacturer: | Crucial |
Model Number: | CT4000MX500SSD1 |
Product SKU: | B09FRRWVWX |
UPC: | 649528906472 |
The link has been copied to the clipboard.
38 Comments
Your comment cannot be blank.
Featured Comments
Nothing I've ever seen in the consumer realm.
The P3 is a DRAM-less (but supports HMB), QLC, NVMe drive. The MX500 has DRAM (512MB), TLC, and is SATA. Technically, the MX500 should theoretically be more reliable, due to the TLC NAND and presence of DRAM. Reality could be different.
The performance characteristics can be quite different. The NVMe P3 will have much higher peaks but may have lower lows. When the pSLC write cache is filled, peak sequential writes could drop from >3GB/s to as low as 100MB/s. The MX500 will never reach speeds much beyond 500MB/s (due to the SATA bus) but probably won't drop much, even when the pSLC is full. Realistically, if you're not doing lots of large writes, you probably won't notice a difference. Personally, I'd favor the MX500.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank MWink
Who knows how much SLC cache it has now - probably not the ~380GB that it used to. I hate it when companies reuse the same model number for a different product :/
Thank you for the heads up. I'm still considering it, but it does put it in a different light if it's really QLC, since performance might be somewhat lower.
The pSLC cache on the MX500 is at least partially dynamic, thus will shrink as the drive fills. I'm not sure what size it starts at but bigger is not always better. It may even be a moot point, as some of these high end SATA drives barely drop, when the cache is full.
Please provide links to backup your claims. To date, I've never seen Crucial change the warranted TBW on the MX500 line. I have seen plenty of third-party sites get it wrong. I have also not seen any compelling evidence of a QLC variant of the MX500. Rumors were circulating (possibly from the site you mentioned) but they supposedly turned out to be counterfeit drives. Ironically, I'd also like a source for where Crucial claims it's TLC. As far as I've seen, Crucial never claimed the MX500 was TLC, only that it used Micron 3D NAND. Technically, they could make a QLC variant, without running afoul of the original specs.
The pSLC cache on the MX500 is at least partially dynamic, thus will shrink as the drive fills. I'm not sure what size it starts at but bigger is not always better. It may even be a moot point, as some of these high end SATA drives barely drop, when the cache is full.
I hate to tell ya but that's 4Gb (GigaBITS), not 4GB (GigaBYTES). 4Gb=512MB.
Please provide links to backup your claims. To date, I've never seen Crucial change the warranted TBW on the MX500 line. I have seen plenty of third-party sites get it wrong. I have also not seen any compelling evidence of a QLC variant of the MX500. Rumors were circulating (possibly from the site you mentioned) but they supposedly turned out to be counterfeit drives. Ironically, I'd also like a source for where Crucial claims it's TLC. As far as I've seen, Crucial never claimed the MX500 was TLC, only that it used Micron 3D NAND. Technically, they could make a QLC variant, without running afoul of the original specs.
The pSLC cache on the MX500 is at least partially dynamic, thus will shrink as the drive fills. I'm not sure what size it starts at but bigger is not always better. It may even be a moot point, as some of these high end SATA drives barely drop, when the cache is full.
I hate to tell ya but that's 4Gb (GigaBITS), not 4GB (GigaBYTES). 4Gb=512MB.
https://www.crucial.com/ssd/mx500...0mx500s
https://content.crucial
It's weird that different stores and some reviewers claim it's only 360TBW. I wonder where they're getting those numbers?
"SSD endurance is listed at 360 terabytes written (TBW); Tom's Hardware claims the drive is rated for 1,000 TBW, but we can't verify that (it's possible that Crucial simply hasn't fully updated its product page yet). Crucial does say the drive comes backed by a five-year limited warranty, however." --Techspot.
https://www.techspot.co
Another (unsubstantiated) claim of 360TBW:
https://www.relaxedtech
B&H possibly erroneously lists it as 360TBW:
https://www.bhphotovide
Best Buy lists it as 360TBW:
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/cruc...Id=64817
TechPowerup goes with the 1000TBW number, but warns that there are multiple hardware versions:
https://www.techpowerup
StorageReview - 1000TBW:
https://www.storagerevi
They subsequently fixed the failures with a firmware update, but this August 2022 r/sysadmins thread was one of the things that made me suspicious that they'd changed things, or that there might be multiple versions floating around out there:
https://old.reddit.com/r/sysadmin...t_ba
https://www.crucial.com/ssd/mx500...0mx500s
https://content.crucial
It's weird that different stores and some reviewers claim it's only 360TBW. I wonder where they're getting those numbers?
"SSD endurance is listed at 360 terabytes written (TBW); Tom's Hardware claims the drive is rated for 1,000 TBW, but we can't verify that (it's possible that Crucial simply hasn't fully updated its product page yet). Crucial does say the drive comes backed by a five-year limited warranty, however." --Techspot.
https://www.techspot.co
Another (unsubstantiated) claim of 360TBW:
https://www.relaxedtech
B&H possibly erroneously lists it as 360TBW:
https://www.bhphotovide
Best Buy lists it as 360TBW:
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/cruc...Id=64817
TechPowerup goes with the 1000TBW number, but warns that there are multiple hardware versions:
https://www.techpowerup
StorageReview - 1000TBW:
https://www.storagerevi
They subsequently fixed the failures with a firmware update, but this August 2022 r/sysadmins thread was one of the things that made me suspicious that they'd changed things, or that there might be multiple versions floating around out there:
https://old.reddit.com/r/sysadmin...t_ba
I'm aware of the Reddit thread but don't know what the issue was. Aside from that thread, I have not seen widespread reports of premature failures (unlike the Samsung 870 EVO). I don't know that a firmware update solved any reliability issues. I recall them mostly being meant to fix issues with niche use cases.
There are multiple distinct versions of the MX500. I'm aware of at least three, but the 4TB model was only available in the latest iteration. You can tell which hardware by the firmware revision:
M3CR01X-M3CR02X - SMI 2258, 64-layer Micron TLC, 1GB DRAM per 1TB NAND
M3CR03X - SMI 2259, 96-layer Micron TLC, not sure the DRAM:NAND ratio
M3CR04X - SMI 2259, 176-layer Micron TLC, 512MB DRAM (regardless of capacity)
That's quite handy knowing about the hardware depending on firmware version.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.