I am looking into updating my laptops with SSD. Is it worth looking at some of the less well known drives as with those I can get a 1TB for under £50 even though I only really need 500GB area. It's currently 5 laptops with more to follow Thanks
Personally I would go with something better known - if you're after a drive that size, that suggests you either have mucho data or large game/app installs, but either way you won't want to be losing and reinstalling that amount if a cheaper drive fails. I don't like Samsung as a brand so I tend to go with Crucial for mine - think the MX500 was the last model I bought, good balance of price/performance. Can't remember who took over OCZ but I wouldn't go near them either (probably turn out now it was Crucial ).
I've only tried Kioxia (formerly part of Toshiba) in nvme not SSD form. It does its job but gets very hot when working in an enclosure. I'm not sure if that's doing of the drive, the enclosure or both. So, yeah, sorry that's not really much use.
That makes me feel better I was already leaning towards Crucial as they have a good price to size ratio
Most of my SSDs are MX500s. I heard they may have changed the design but they've always been my go to.
Fact: Every Crucial SSD I have ever owned, which is more than just a few, has failed catastrophically and lost data. I'm not saying Crucial is bad, or that yours will fail, or that their failure rate is anything different to anyone else. When the last one failed I made two commitments to myself - 1) never again purchase a Crucial SSD and 2) make that statement of fact on any "Which drive" thread I stumble across until the end of time. So there it is.
The only SSD I've ever had fail was a Crucial, too - and I owned an OCZ before the Toshiba takeover. To be fair, it *was* a factory refurb, but still...
Conversely, every Crucial SSD I've ever owned/bought, including the one in my wife's PC, has been faultless.
It's odd isn't it. Every Crucial i've every owed still works, only had a Samsung fail. That includes a 64Gb M225 from 2009. Edit: oh and a Corsair failed but that was an nvme
Have had 2 mx500's both 2tb's still going strong and a bx500. I've even ran those cheap asf gigabyte and kingston drives for years in older machines I didn't care about but needed a speed boost... Again zero issues and all rinsed hours a day. I have a WD black ssd in my mac mini that was new just before buying it with proof and a old samsung 850 evo in my ps3 slim that lived for 3-4 years prior to that in my old macbook pro which was in it when I bought it, a 2tb mx500 in my ps4 slim, and a pny in my macbook pro. Never had any issues with name brands... Only with name brand hdd's either DOA or dying in under a year - toshiba deathstar 5tb loosing me photos I can never take again of family that'd recently died, literally the month before I could afford a backup drive...!!! cheers c***!
Just to let everyone know I just ordered 2 Crucial BX500 480GBs as Amazon has them at under £30 each. Nice little project for my Easter break
That’s not in any way noteworthy though, is it? That’s to be expected. I’ve never had any Intel, Samsung or any other drives fail. Normal expected behaviour all round for them.
Come on mate be fair, it is noteworthy in a thread where someone posts that all of their Crucials have failed and they'd never buy them again. It's just highlights the opposite experience is also true.
The only SSD I ever had fail was a 1TB Samsung 870 QVO (I know, I know - I brought it on myself! ) I still have my first ever SSD (a 60GB OCZ) in a drawer somewhere in the study. I think it still works!
Yes, because the coincidence of having dozens of SSDs from various manufacturers over time, and only having Crucial ones fail, is noteworthy. And its just that, coincidence, but it's noteworthy nonetheless. Hence my caveat that I wasn't saying Crucial isn't necessarily bad, or that I expect my experience is the norm. Promote on Crucial all you want, but dozens of people having no problems every with Crucial drives does not change the fact that all 5? 6? however many Crucial SSDs I've owned over time have failed. Again, a coincidence no doubt, but mental nonetheless. Of course the opposite experience is true, SSDs aren't supposed to and should not fail and the overwhelming majority do not, which makes it all the more strange that my failure rate of SSDs ever in my ownership is undoubtedly "high" overall, and only/all failed SSDs have been Crucial.
I've not had an SSD fail yet even some that I have taken to 0% life and ran like that for ages with mining, I was thinking they were surprisingly robust. I'm sure plenty do die, hardware after all, there's always going to be a percentage.
I never challenged your experience as being noteworthy. At all. In a thread asking for advice/recommendations you basically calling @Mr_Mistoffelees experience of a particular brand as "not really noteworthy" came across as a bit arsey. Whatever, if I misinterpreted then my bad.
Its not though - noteworthy, interesting, significant, whatever, at least I don't think it is - we assume SSDs will not die. They're not supposed to and they generally don't. The "not dying" part is expected and normal behaviour for any SSD. No intention of coming across arsey or dismissive. Unless we're talking about a sample size of thousands, what I mean is "no dead drives" is literally, by definition, not noteworthy - its entirely as expected.
Sorry Tad but, it does seem a bit that way. Also no-one should rule out a brand, generally considered a good one, on the basis of one person's experience. You may just have been rather unfortunate. Even Toyotas go wrong sometimes.
