Crucial CT500MX500SSD1(Z) MX500 500 GB 3D NAND SATA 2.5 inch Internal SSD £119.99 - Amazon
663°Expired

Crucial CT500MX500SSD1(Z) MX500 500 GB 3D NAND SATA 2.5 inch Internal SSD £119.99 - Amazon

£119.99Amazon Deals
28
Found 19th Jan
Community Updates

Groups

Top comments
Cold. No Band 20
28 Comments
ITMA9 m ago

I prefer the MX300


Any particular reason?
Has this drive not been this price direct from Crucial for the last few weeks? I was certainly hovering over the order button last week.
Edited by: "binned-it" 19th Jan
Arjun742 m ago

Any particular reason?


also very curious
each to their own but this is still a good deal. The MX500 is the newer model and has been reviewed as faster than the MX300 series.

The M500 was an inferior product, however the MX500 is a better product.

anandtech.com/sho…iew
Edited by: "fiqqer" 19th Jan
same price on Cruical + you get Topcashback as well.
Thanks
what do you think of the Samsung 850 evo
Dy_8635 m ago

what do you think of the Samsung 850 evo


don't just take my word for it, there are comments in the link I provided above about the Evo 850. If you can that get for the same price as this then its a good deal. If not then this will be better value.
fiqqer9 m ago

don't just take my word for it, there are comments in the link I provided …don't just take my word for it, there are comments in the link I provided above about the Evo 850. If you can that get for the same price as this then its a good deal. If not then this will be better value.


I've been thinking about it for a week now, it's £35 more for the Samsung but will it be a big difference or same.... can't decide lol
Cold. No Band 20
Dy_8620 m ago

I've been thinking about it for a week now, it's £35 more for the Samsung …I've been thinking about it for a week now, it's £35 more for the Samsung but will it be a big difference or same.... can't decide lol



You really wont notice the difference - it is not worth paying £35 extra for the Samsung.
Nah, not in that color.
finnmaccool1 h, 57 m ago

Cold. No Band 20


Thanks you know what B20 is now. Lol
Edited by: "sam_of_london" 19th Jan
Awesome deal! Heat added thank you!
Negative, not pringles.
shadey1224 m ago

Negative, not pringles.


That's a cheap pop!
Pretty decent deal I'd say
Cold - been this price since it came out.
I'd save my money and wait for the 850 Evo to drop in price again.
CaptainSpaulding10 h, 58 m ago

Cold - been this price since it came out. I'd save my money and wait for …Cold - been this price since it came out. I'd save my money and wait for the 850 Evo to drop in price again.


I'd have thought this was worth no vote rather than a cold vote if the price is the same as it usually is?
I miss the days when these were under £100
If you are on a budget, the SSHD is also a good alternative. Faster than HDD, cheaper than SSD for 4 times more storage.
nice-new45 m ago

If you are on a budget, the SSHD is also a good alternative. Faster than …If you are on a budget, the SSHD is also a good alternative. Faster than HDD, cheaper than SSD for 4 times more storage.


Makes hardly any difference . I have used Seagate SSHD before. Waste of money.
Edited by: "sam_of_london" 21st Jan

I'm no expert but I think the benefits of SSHD are very much dependent on types of usage. If you're constantly using just the same few programs then it's fine as the hybrid drive will be using the 8GB SSD cache. If you're using it to to load a variety of programs, games, apps, etc. then it won't be much use beyond having faster than HDD boot times.

Benchmarks aren't too helpful either as a fresh install will give different results than real world constant usage, depending on what's being done with it and what is being allocated to the cache.
nice-new22 h, 57 m ago

[Video] [Video]


This is for a relatively clean install. Once you have started installing large programmes then the differences become far more marked, especially with games and video applications. A flash drive SSD will massively increase performance even if you only use a small one as a boot drive and for your main programmes. For PC I use a ssd for boot and mechanical for storage. For laptops I only use SSD and backup to external drive.

As hybrid drives only have a tiny amount of SSD memory they will only provide a small boost, most noticeable on bootup and a little on programmes. The hybrid drives that have been produced have not proved good for reliability.

For me the small boost in a hybrid drive does not outweigh the decrease in reliability of these drives.
Edited by: "fiqqer" 22nd Jan
fiqqer22nd Jan

This is for a relatively clean install. Once you have started installing …This is for a relatively clean install. Once you have started installing large programmes then the differences become far more marked, especially with games and video applications.As hybrid drives only have a tiny amount of SSD memory they will only provide a small boost, most noticeable on bootup and a little on programmes. The hybrid drives that have been produced have not proved good for reliability. For me the small boost in a hybrid drive does not outweigh the decrease in reliability of these drives.


I don't know if it's the case for all games but my PvsZ Garden Warfare 2 on my PS4 with SSHD load faster than my friend's one with his normal HDD.
nice-new2 h, 29 m ago

I don't know if it's the case for all games but my PvsZ Garden Warfare 2 …I don't know if it's the case for all games but my PvsZ Garden Warfare 2 on my PS4 with SSHD load faster than my friend's one with his normal HDD.



Yes this can happen with SSHD. If the programme isn't in the small flash memory to start with then it will have to put it there first and then read it - which will then be slower than mechanical disk. If the programme is used regularly then the likelyhood is that it will be in the flash memory and will then load faster. You also need to factor in the speed of the hard disk, most modern ones now tend to be slower 5400rpm, so if your friend is using a 7200rpm one it will be faster even if the 5400rpm one had the small flash cache (SSHD/hybrid)
Edited by: "fiqqer" 22nd Jan
Just arrived today. Plugged it in but a bit surprised by the performance scores next to my old evo 850. All the benchmarks I've seen indicate the MX500 should be faster than this? Any ideas?

33150653-6TdAH.jpg
Edit: Nevermind I may have plugged it into a SATA2 instead of SATA 3. Will try rewiring and update.
Edit: After a BCD issue and a lot of faff, can confirm with SATA 3 the performance is very comparable with the evo 850 drive of the same size. Looks good!33150653-9h3Kv.jpg
Edited by: "ck_" 28th Jan
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text