• expired

Crucial MX500 1TB SATA 2.5-inch $184.03 Delivered @ Amazon AU

591

500GB is $118.19.

Start your system in seconds, load files almost instantly, accelerate your most demanding applications, store massive data with drive capacities up to 2TB, be more efficient with Micron 3D NAND
Enjoy a cooler, quieter computer and extend laptop battery life using only 100 mW of power, Keep all your saved work if power is unexpectedly cut with Integrated Power Loss Immunity
Get a high price-to performance ratio without needing a financing plan to pay for it, protect your data on a drive that's tried, tested, and proven from start to finish
Block hackers and thieves with AES 256-bit hardware-based encryption, Transfer files easily from old drive with Acronis True Image HD, manage and improve SSD with the crucial storage executive tool
1TB 2.5-inch internal SSD, SATA 6.0Gb/s, 560 MB/s Read, 510 MB/s Write

Price History at C CamelCamelCamel.

Related Stores

Amazon AU
Amazon AU
Marketplace

closed Comments

    • +13

      Have you seen any SSD boot time benchmarks recently?

      Modern motherboards and SSDs in conjunction with Windows 10 can get to the desktop in 4.9 seconds. Granted, the system in that article was using M.2 SSDs from Intel, but the difference between SATA and M.2 in terms of POST times/boot times is maybe 2-3 seconds at most in my experience.

      In a modern build with a decent motherboard and the correct UEFI config (fast boot/limited POST), the MX500 can get to the desktop in under 15 seconds at least, if not under 10 (which is what my MX500 1TB manages).

      The claim about "loading files almost instantly" can be considered hyperbole as it's dependant on so many factors and variables that you can't just categorically say "all files" will load in X amount of time, but consistent boot times of less than 20 seconds is something PCs have been capable of since around 2012.

      • +3

        Wait until you work with SAS SSDs in servers. The term loading files almost instantly is very true. I have multiple large SQL servers restarting in 5 seconds ;)

        • +1

          I already do. Been a Sys Admin for 7 years now.

          SAS SSDs are not that fundamentally different from their consumer-level brethren in performance, but flash storage arrays and SANs obviously leverage flash caches and RAID pools with dozens and dozens of SSDs, so naturally you're going to be seeing exponentially greater performance compared to just a single SSD, which is what most consumer desktops will have for their boot drive.

          • @Gnostikos: Not to mention most SAS SSDs are now at 12 GB/s instead of 6 GB/s and are usually designed to be more read intensive.

            • +1

              @Clear: Really downvotes? No bullshit here it's a genuine speed and standard of SAS and not SATA.

              SAS-1: 3.0 Gbit/s, introduced in 2004
              SAS-2: 6.0 Gbit/s, available since February 2009
              SAS-3: 12.0 Gbit/s, available since March 2013
              SAS-4: 22.5 Gbit/s called "24G", standard completed in 2017

              Boom SAS-3 12GB/s SSD

              • +2

                @Clear: Disclaimer: I didn't downvote you, I generally don't upvote/downvote since I don't think it contributes to the discussion.

                But I think mostly it's because SAS-3 is 12 Gbit/s, not GB as you originally put (twice even though your quoted specs clearly states Gbit/s). 12 GBps is a pretty ridiculous speed. While 12 Gbps sounds fast, it's actually 1.5 GBps, fast in its own right, but nowhere near the performance of top tier NVMe SSD. For eg the speed demon Samsung 980 PRO running on PCIe 4.0 is 6.5/5 GBps. And then the Phison E18 controller will supposedly bring 7 GBps to a lot of top tier SSDs too.

                Even if we're not talking about PCIe 4, plenty of budget friendly PCIe 3 SSDs in the consumer space like 970 EVO (3.5/2.5 GBps) will leave SAS drives in the dust as well.

                Don't get me wrong, SAS drives seem to be a staple of enterprise servers, there're probably plenty of reasons but I doubt speed is one of them. And no offense but saying "Wait until you work with SAS SSDs in servers" doesn't weigh much when my 3 years old SSD pretty much doubles the speed of the fastest SAS drive.

                • @rookie317: You're right. I type GB/s by habit but mean Gbit/s. It's a wonder the toilet paper hoarders would get mad about that since most people around here say "M.2 SSDs are faster" when M.2 is the connector and it can come in SATA or PCIE.

                  PCIe is a whole different ball game that I didn't mention and for good reason. How easy is it to put a dozen enterprise-grade PCIe SSDs in a server in RAID? Most servers don't have that capability. Instead they're built with the use of SAS drives in mind where you can easily put a dozen or more in. Not to mention a consumer grade PCIe SSD will not have the read/write endurance or a warranty compared to an enterprise drive.

                  SAS is seen by a lot of people as the enterprise version of SATA due to the faster speeds and that's exactly the case with what I was talking about. A SAS SSD will outperform a SATA SSD before we even get onto the topic of RAID and controllers.

                  • @Clear:

                    M.2 is the connector and it can come in SATA or PCIE.

                    M.2 is the form factor, SATA/PCIe/MSATA are interfaces.
                    But M.2 has not been used for anything other than PCIe storage devices since it was standardised in 2013. I mean, yeah there's apparently some scant laptops out there with M.2 SATA SSDs, but that remains to be seen if that trend will be around for much longer.

                    Don't get too worked up about being negged on OzBargain, people will neg you for being right, being wrong, talking about something for too long or just because they can.

                    SAS is seen by a lot of people as the enterprise version of SATA due to the faster speeds and that's exactly the case with what I was talking about. A SAS SSD will outperform a SATA SSD before we even get onto the topic of RAID and controllers.

                    It's a bit of moot discussion anyway as it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. You're talking about purpose-built, enterprise storage devices optimised for incredibly high IOPS, with dual storage controllers, populated with SAS SSDs compared to a lone SATA SSD acting as the single local storage medium for a desktop PC.

                    Not sure what the point of this whole tangent was; it's like comparing a race car to a stock sedan.

                    SAS has always been an enterprise storage interface, absolutely true, but it's throughput advantage over SATA is not directly related to the protocol itself nor any architectural/physical differences in the storage devices themselves (since the SAS and SATA protocols have had interoperability since 2004), but more so due to the real selling points of SAS: dual-attachment (so each individual drive can multi-path to dual controllers to support in effect, twice the bandwidth), SAS expanders that allow a single storage controller to address an unlimited amount of devices and back in the pre-SSD era, 15K RPM HDDs only came in SAS.

                    Up until 2013 when the SAS-3 revision was released, the differences between SATA and SAS on an individual level were a lot smaller, now with SAS-4 obviously SAS has left SATA in the dust, but the SATA interface itself could easily be expanded to support higher throughputs and theoretically has with the little-known and little-utilised SATA Express standard (which can theoretically support 16 Gbit/s, faster than SAS-3). The industry has just moved away from SATA for anything prioritising performance and instead rightly chosen PCIe as the new de-facto consumer storage interface due to the much higher performance ceiling.

                    • @Gnostikos:

                      Not sure what the point of this whole tangent was; it's like comparing a race car to a stock sedan.

                      Shouldn't have replied then.

      • +3

        SATA can run on M.2 though, I guess you meant SATA vs PCIe?

        • True, M.2 is just a form factor and can use many interfaces but it's been historically rare to see anything but M.2 PCIe SSDs, so I use PCIe/M.2/NVMe interchangeably since that's just become the industry nomenclature for PCIe SSDs (even from manufacturers) and a lot of people find PCIe more confusing/obscure.

          • +1

            @Gnostikos: A lot of modern laptops around the $800-$1000 mark are shipping with M.2 SSD now rather than traditional 2.5" ones and they use the SATA interface to save costs I guess.

            • @Agret: Interesting development, but I honestly don't see how that could save that much money given that 2.5" SATA SSDs were always cheaper, even now, compared to an equivalent-sized M.2 PCIe SSD.

              I guess you save on physical space, which could make some difference although Ultrabooks haven't used 2.5" SATA SSDs for years now, but I still think M.2 should be reserved for newer, faster storage interfaces while SATA left behind as a relic of the larger form factor era of 3.5" and 2.5" storage devices.

  • +2

    in the technical detail
    "Hard Drive Rotational Speed 500 RPM" ….

    • I lol'd!

    • +4

      Be careful, HDD brands are selling SMR "NAS drives" at the moment so you never know …

      • yeah, I got one as a replacement for my raid. Lucky it rebuilt, but I'm concerned.

  • waiting for WD/Samsung m2 nvme to drop to ~$200 3000 MB/S… 6x faster!

    • Bought 1TB Kingston A2000 nvme for $200 around 8 weeks back. Another decent option if you can find it well priced.

  • Is this SSD reliable? I understand your mileage can vary - but just wanting to understand how reliable this particular brand/model.

    Thanks

    • +4

      Reliability is within a few percentage points of everything else so it's not worth considering unless you operate thousands of them simultaneously.

      There is no reliable storage.

    • +6

      Since no one has done a long-term "reliability" study on these particular SSDs (nor many SSDs for that matter), no one can actually say with certainty, but they do have a 5-year warranty which is the industry maximum offered by other manufacturers and the rated endurance is 360TB written, which is more than most people will write to any storage mediums in their lifetime I would wager.

      According to an old SSD endurance benchmark from 2015, consumer SSDs will last well beyond their rated lifespans and well beyond any average user's workload (past 500TB written at a minimum, and keep in mind these results were for much older SSDs with older NAND technology and storage controllers; the Samsung 840 Pro achieved a record 2.4PB written before failing, or 2,400TB).

      Intel, Samsung and Crucial/Micron are the three SSD manufacturers worth their salt, who have been in the NAND storage space since the beginning and have generally been putting out solid products generation after generation.

      Newcomers like WD definitely make some good models but they're a bit of a unknown quantity in the SSD market at the moment, given their limited history.

    • +3

      totally anecdotal but I've been running a 500GB MX500 for 3 years without skipping a beat.

      SSDs are ridiculous in lifespan. I've been testing/replacing drives lately in my computer and the network storage. Some of these SSDs are 8 years old, still running fine. But the grinding rust drives are all at various stages of (profanity) up.

      I'm sorely tempted to just shell out the extra cash to replace everything with SSDs. Especially now my "media" drive has mostly been deleted because stuff is available on streaming services (and my eyesight is going too much to require high quality 4K rips of everything)…

  • +1

    Although it's a good price, I really didn't think $736 per 4TB of SATA SSD would be the kind of pricing we would see by 2020.

  • Ps4 compatible? Cheers

    • +1

      Sure is! MX500 is one of the best 2.5 Sata SSDs too.

    • +1

      Yeah the MX500 drives come with a spacer to make them the same height as a regular 2.5" laptop drive (they are a bit slimmer without it). It's a plastic bracket that has some adhesive strips on it so that the drive will fit properly into the PS4/a laptop drive tray.

  • -3

    Is this a performance level SSD?

    • +3

      Yes, the MX500 series were Crucial's top-of-the-range SATA SSDs in their last generation of flash storage, with the budget/entry-level series being the BX500 models. The current generation are the P1/P2 models.

    • +5

      Post a deal for a 1TB SLC SATA SSD for anywhere close to this price then.

      TLC is more than adequate for home users. As mentioned previously, consumer-grade SSDs have life-spans well beyond anything the average user could ever require. The performance gains SLC has over TLC are only noticeable on benchmarks, not in real-world usage in typical home user use cases.

      • Especially considering this drive is 1tb so has a lot more provisioning than smaller size drives so it can spread it the wear levelling better too.

  • Price is not bad but a bit high base on historical price point.

  • 6 months ago this was selling fot $140

    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/467799

    • +1

      Just need the AU$ to keep climbing back.

    • bought samsung one around 150 2 years ago T.T

  • +2

    Is the 1TB one back to full price or is it just me?

  • Been running a toshiba 480gb since 2012,

    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/80775

  • +1

    It's still available from SE (https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/530788). $188 + delivery and possibly "welcome" $20 off code.

    • Code no longer works.

  • +3

    if anyone is interested - pcbyte is having a sale on crucial ssd's (just orered the mx500 1tb for $159 with $9 delivery) - https://www.pcbyte.com.au/store/category/deals-crucial-easte...

    • +3

      That's surely worthy of another deal itself at $168!

      • Out of stock :(

        $169 for 1tb crucial p1 nvme m.2 is alright though

    • +1

      You bloody little rippa
      Got one :)

  • It's back now for $184. Had a $15 credit, so got it for $169.

Login or Join to leave a comment