Crucial MX500 2 TB CT2000MX500SSD1(Z) and Crucial MX500 2 TB CT2000MX500SSD1 They both look the same to me apart from the Z designation and the original RRPs of £161 vs £213 for the non-Z, otherwise they're the same price at Amazon.co.uk Also, are the MX500s recommended for the price?
As far as I can tell, not much except the Z might not have the 9.5mm adaptor. Not sure on recommendations as I tend to just buy whatever fits my price point
MX500 is of proven quality, it is TLC flash with DRAM, IIRC. This is the one I'd go for if others are of similar price. I see Samsung QVO is slightly cheaper at £117. QLC flash memory is cheaper to produce but has less lifespan, for general usage, they should both be fine. I'd still go with MX500 for 15% more if my budget allows.
3D NAND is a different manufacturing technology. They should all be 3D NAND these days. This talks about the differences. https://www.kingston.com/unitedking...rmance/difference-between-slc-mlc-tlc-3d-nand https://ssdsphere.com/wd-blue-3d-vs-crucial-mx500-ssd/ https://ssdsphere.com/samsung-870-qvo-vs-crucial-mx500/ Hum.... actually, I stand corrected, MX500 is SLC caching rather than DRAM. The Samsung QVO is just as good, currently 15% cheaper. I'd usually go with cheapest one that largely performs on-par in similar class.
Thanks for those links, the Samsung 870 QVO looks to be a better performer and it's cheaper than the Crucial.
The Z denotes "Amazon frustration-free packaging" vs (I think) retail. I've pretty much always used Crucials and been happy (touch wood), not because of the tech, but because reviews said they were similar to/slightly under Samsung performance and were always cheaper when I've bought them. Probably also because I doubt my ability to see any real difference other than in the wallet area. Checking my Amazon orders says I had one of these (non-Z) last October when it was priced at £196. It wasn't bought for that price, but annoyingly, the discount on the whole order is applied as one number so I don't remember how much was off of the disk itself.
Fun fact, I have never owned a Crucial SSD that has not either randomly wiped itself or outright failed, and I have owned enough Crucial SSDs that you could call it a pattern. I have never had an SSD from any other manufacturer show as much as a hiccup. I'm not necessarily making an attestation that Crucial are bad, my luck with them certainly has been though.
Odd how these things happen, I've stuck to Crucial as they're the only ones not to have flaked out on me since the M225 (which still works funnily enough). Mind you I've probably not owned as many as you I think I have five MX500's on the go at the moment. @giskard I managed to find a response from a Micron rep on the Amazon US site from several years back:
In a similar vein, I've owned four Sandisk SSDs - three Plus drives and one Ultra - all three of the plus drives died. I had a Crucial M300 die after ~seven years (fair enough, I suppose) and an OCZ Vertex die in warranty (well known for failure, after the fact), but never had any other problems with any other SSD brand outside of Sandisk. I will NEVER buy another Sandisk SSD.
I tend to choose Crucial SSD's, from M4 to MX200 to BX200 to BX500 to MX500. I've only had one SSD failure with an Innodisk, a drive I didn't chose to buy myself.
