![[eBay Plus] Crucial BX500 960GB $109.95 Shipped @ Shopping Square eBay](https://files.ozbargain.com.au/n/91/473891.jpg?h=5c80fb01)
Marketplace
PASTA15
Discount shows at checkout
[eBay Plus] Crucial BX500 960GB $109.95 Shipped @ Shopping Square eBay
1250
nocure on 30/07/2019 - 15:21 ebay.com.au (2111 clicks)
Last edited 30/07/2019 - 15:53 by 1 other user
Last edited 30/07/2019 - 15:53 by 1 other user
Related Stores
closed Comments
The code is only available to Plus members, not just the free shipping.
Damn, already had one plus trial and didn't use it. Signed up for those damn $99 Ear Pods which I missed out on.
At 1000GB/$100, this is almost a sweet spot for NAS/Data storage… haven't seen any SSD drive NAS' until I just looked for some, but looks promising!
Not sure where you got that from but SSD performance is nearly always listed in MB/s. So the SSD is 500 MB/s write and 540 MB/s read.
On my mac I usually get about 350MB/s
@gg99: The physical interface must be choking it.
-
On another note, SSD MB/s murders HDD, and that's not even showing where a SSD truly shines.
Not in sustained write. You get that sequential write for the first 48GB, but for writing files >48GB in total, it drops to 85MB/s write after 48GB - this is known as the sustained write speed (85MB/s). To be fair, pretty much all TLC SSDs have this same issue. However, BX500 is known to be one of the worst (not a surprise as Micron basically put cheaper / inferior grade TLC NAND on this one compared to MX500). I understand most people won't be writing 48GB+ files to the SSD non-stop often.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crucial-bx500-ssd,5377-…
Look at the section: Sustained Sequential Write Performance. Also, it is a DRAMless SSD.It is very easy to get hyped up by the sequential read/write speed - which are basically the SLC cache speed, not the true TLC cache speed. TLC SSDs are counting on you won't be writing data to it non-stop. Then, there is the more important random read/write, which SSD makers generally don't quote.
Quite correct sorry. Not sure why I stuffed that up!
Chandler, I would encourage you to do some research on the difference between Sequential vs Random Speeds and have a look at the difference between performance of top end HDD's and low end SSD's such as this Crucial BX500, you'll often find there's no competition, the SSD win's by very far.
Using the website links below, you can see the WD Red 1TB 2.5" HDD has average Sequential Speeds of 76.7MB/s and Random Speeds of 0.98MB/s
In comparison, the Crucial BX500 240GB 2.5" SSD has average Sequential Speeds of 343MB/s and Random Speeds of 33.3 MB/sThe Sequential Speeds are more than fine on either drive but you can see the real difference is in the Random Read & Random Write Speeds, these are a more accurate representation of the kinds of speeds you'll be seeing in your day to day activities and the HDD has such low speeds in this area because of the physical limitation of a Head Actuator Arm trying to find information at different points all over the disc platters.
Anyway, in saying all this, I do believe there is still a case for HDD's in cases where a low price per GB is essential and in cases where the drive's will be written with new information constantly 24/7 like a server or Camera Security System as the longevity of a low end SSD won't be as good in this scenario, however for most people throwing this in a Desktop PC or a laptop, it's a no-brainer to go with the SSD
https://hdd.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/2756/WDC-WD10JFCX-68…
https://ssd.userbenchmark.com/SpeedTest/578496/CT240BX500SSD…I upvoted you to cancel out that downvote, as you aren't wrong.
I did look at the userbenchmark site, but not being familiar with their layout made the page hard to understand what specifications were written where and what drives they were for.
Looking at and understanding it now, an average Sequential Read of 87.6 MB/s for the WD REd vs 468 MB/s for the Crucial… speaks for itself.
So if my understanding of the specs is correct, the WD Red outperforms the Crucial in both transfer speeds and endurance.
It's not correct. The idea that a HDD, particularly a 1TB one, will be anywhere even remotely close to an SSD is untrue. Also, sequential transfer speeds are largely irrelevant. I can RAID 6 HDDs together and get higher sequential speeds, but the killer for HDDs is seek time, reading and writing small files is much slower than SSDs and that's what makes SSDs perform much better than HDDs for anything but mass storage of large files.
I did find it odd that it won out, and should have more closely looked a the data to see that I stuffed up the Mbps / MBps on the SSD.
Downvotes deserved in this case!
4000GB/$120 for has been the sweet spot for personal NAS for quite a few years now. I do agree that 1000GB/$100 is a great sweet spot for SSD, but 1TB is really too small for a NAS. If I had plus, would pick one up for the Playstation though, or a good size data drive for a PC.
Would this be good for a PS4 Pro?
How’s it compare to a USB 3 ssd for load times on PS4?
From what little I've read, the Pro definitely has advantages when replacing the internal drive, but the regular internal is comparable to USB 3 SSD.
USB is a severe bottleneck.
@tonyamazing: Yes, SATA III interface, but as @tonyamazing said the PS4 has some serious performance limitations on the internal bus, so you won't get anywhere near full SATA III throughput. USB 3 is a decent comparison. Should expect most game load times to reduce by 50-60%, however the upgrade is more dramatic on a PS4 Pro due to the improved bus throughput.
It gets confusing as another poster was comparing Interface Throughput from drive specs. You need to look end to end (drive speed \ interface speed \ and then your system speeds (eg: BUS). Different drives cope better with different work types.
PS4 just doesn't utilise SSDs well but there is an improvement over standard hard drives and SSHDs. If space is not a concern then its definitely worth it. If space is a concern then I'd personally go for a 2TB SSHD for the same price. Performance on the SSHD improves as you load the same stuff constantly.
God damn, at this rate we'll have 4tb at affordable prices soon
Thanks, got one. Why? Because it's cheap. Do I need it? Hell no.
Good price +1
Do i need this.. NO.. did i buy this no.. do i want this YES :)
Just got a Crucial MX500 500GB for $79 a while ago on this site.
And i now have two spare 250gb drives laying around.I only have one evo 960 250gb laying around but around 10 2.5 hdds I replaced with ssds lately
Raid them in 0
Live dangerously.
@[Deactivated]: Failure rate of SSD's is much much lower than the RAID 0 HDD days.
Besides, if you are regularly backing up (daily / weekly & a monthly full system image) you're golden in a case of failure.
I have 3x BX500 240Gb drives for a similar reason.
Dont know where to enter this code. I got to commit to buy and didnt see a place to enter it and commited to buy to see it shows up. And it was still $148. F hell why is this coupon s*** overcomplicated.
Edit: I see it now. you enter the coupon code on the bottom and its restricted to ebay plus members. should be at the top.
contact seller and ask them to cancel order.. they should do it without issue.. its normal and happens allot
Ebay plus has a free 3 month trial that on offer. just remember to cancel it before the trial ends or u get charged $49
I would consider this is I really needed it, but since I don't desperately need this I'm going to continue to boycott ebay plus. I don't like paying just for the privilege of being able to shop at a vendor. At least with prime you get video and books.
I would strongly recommend spending a bit more and getting the MX series instead. It's faster, more durable, and outdoes some of the more expensive competition.
Irrelevant if you use it as a data drive
for storage only this is better when 99% of the time the drive isn't being used and when it is its only for reading it wont reduce lifespan. If you want to run games off it or plan to write allot of files to it all the time then YES the MX500 is the way to go
Warranted for ~50% more Total Bytes Written, and ~ 3.7%/2.0% faster sequential read/write speed.
From the same seller, ~42.8% more expensive (before any discounts on either item) @ $209.95, although Computer Alliance is selling it for $169 at the moment (~15.0% more expensive than the BX500 from shoppingsquare).
Hi,
Good find, these are getting cheaper by the day! :)
Can anyone recommend an enclosure for this?
Thanks in advance.
I think you need to look for "uasp protocol"
Hi all, would this be suitable to pit into an external enclosure and use an an external editing SSD for lightroom and photoshop? Or would I be better off with a Samsung T5 or the like? Not really fuss about the size, as I'm aware the T5 is smaller. More concerned about durability and speed. Thanks
I have a similar question as well. I have purchased this drive and now I wonder if I can use this to transfer my macs photos library?
TIATransfer yes BUT as long as you keep a "Copy" elsewhere as all HDD die :-)
Cheapest Crucial 960GB so far?
nope! its been $1.15 cheaper a few days ago
regardless, still a very good price and would recommend this drive.
Next stop - sub $100.00 would be great
Does the 500Gb on sale as well? Cant really see it from the link as it show the much higher price
Wow. I dont think i need anymore that 8TB total NAS storage for home - maybe a future of SSD only storage is not too far away.
MY Slackware Linux, OS/2 Warp, Win95 and DRDOS 7 didn't put too big a dent in my 1.3GB monster when I got it either, though 16MB of RAM would have made the whole system sweeter…
Bill'll fill it.
Did the price go up? It's $146 before the code.
Bought this at $120 with an eBay coupon + eBay plus for shipping, happy with what I paid but they literally sent it in an envelope with tracking (like $3? Shipping option) and were charging $16 shipping.
Before deciding to buy this, suggest people first read the Tom’s Hardware review of the drive.
Crikey that's cheap!