Unfortunately, this deal has expired 17 October 2019.
Crucial P1 1TB 3D NAND NVMe PCIe M.2 SSD (2,000 MB/s R, 1750MB/s W) for £89.46 With Code Delivered @ Ebuyer/Ebay
*
646°
Refreshed 4 years ago

Crucial P1 1TB 3D NAND NVMe PCIe M.2 SSD (2,000 MB/s R, 1750MB/s W) for £89.46 With Code Delivered @ Ebuyer/Ebay

£89.46£101.9712% off
Shared by
Brutes
Joined in 2016
7,871
13,392

About this deal

This deal is expired. Here are some options that might interest you:

More Samsung SSD deals

Find more like this

See all deals

Discover more deals on our homepage

Update 1
Price further reduced from £91.99 to £89.46
5-year Limited Warranty
We back thousands of validation hours, dozens of qualification tests, and a heritage of award-winning SSDs with a 5-year limited warranty.

For your high productivity workforce that requires more storage and demands better performance, the Crucial® P1 SSD delivers. Capacities start at 500GB and scale to 2TB. Accelerate performance with the latest NVMe™ PCIe® technology. The P1 is designed to be one of the most beneficial upgrades for business computers — storage, speed, and dependability.

Key Features
  • Capacities up to 2TB with sequential reads/writes up to 2,000/1,750 MB/s
  • NVMe™ PCIe® interface marks the next step in storage innovation
  • Micron® 3D NAND – advancing the world's memory and storage technology for 40 years
  • 5-year limited warranty

User Benefits
  • Room to Spare: Securely load and store up to 2TB of important files on Micron® NAND in a tiny M.2 form factor.
  • Vital Performance: NVMe™ PCIe® technology delivers sequential read/write speeds up to 2,000/1,750 MB/s so work gets done faster.
  • Lasting Value: The Crucial P1 SSD is designed to be the only storage upgrade you'll need with an affordable blend of performance and capacity.
  • 5-year Limited Warranty: We back thousands of validation hours, dozens of qualification tests, and a heritage of award-winning
  • SSDs with a 5-year limited warranty.

Specifications
  • Capacity: 1TB
  • Sequential Read: 2,000 MB/
  • Sequential Write: 1,750 MB/s
  • 4KB Random Read: 170k IOPS
  • 4KB Random Write: 240k IOPS
  • Form Factor: M.2
  • Product Dimensions: 22mm x 80mm
  • Product Weight: .017 kg
  • Memory Type: Micron® 3D QLC NAND Flash
  • Controller: SM2263
  • Interface PCIe®: NVMe™ Gen 3
  • MTTF: 1.5 million hours
  • Endurance: Up to 200TB
  • Operating Temperature: 0°C to 70°C
  • Power Usage Active Average: 100mW
  • Hardware Encryption: No
  • Warranty: 5-year limited

Included Accessories
  • Crucial® Storage Executive
  • Acronis® True Image for Crucial
  • Crucial Easy SSD Install Guide
eBay More details at

Community Updates
Edited by Brutes, 16 October 2019
New Comment

You may also like

15 Comments

sorted by
's avatar
  1. Minstadave's avatar
    Slurrpy15/10/2019 17:18

    What's the difference?


    They use different types of flash.

    Sabrent is TLC which stores 3 bits of data in every cell. Writing to TLC is relatively fast at about 500MB/s.
    Intel is QLC which stores 4 bits of data in every cell. Writing to QLC is really slow at 100MB/s (same as mechanical drives). It isn't as robust as TLC (you can't write to it as many times before it dies).

    Both use a cache when you write to the drive to achieve better performance. They use a portion of their flash chips as SLC (single level cells). Using TLC/QLC chips as SLC reduces the capacity of the drive alot. For a QLC drive to have a 256GB SLC cache uses 1TB of QLC chips, so there's a limit on how much cache is available, as the drive fills up in drops.

    If you write quickly to the drive the cache gets used up and then you're left writing directly to the TLC or QLC which is slower (as above) and in the case of QLC is really slow.

    If you write slowly or in small amounts the SLC data is shuffled onto the TLC or QLC, freeing up the cache. So for light to medium usage you never see the performance penalty. (edited)
  2. Minstadave's avatar
    Good price for the capacity.

    If considering make sure you are aware of the limitations of QLC used in this drive compared with the TLC in the Sabrent Rocket at £110, which is a better performing drive.
  3. biffothebear's avatar
    Slurrpy15/10/2019 17:18

    What's the difference?


    QLC is better for storage, whereas TLC is better for an 'active drive' as it were, given that TLC can accommodate more read/write cycles. Is the difference enough to matter? Depends on what you're using it for really.
  4. Beehj84's avatar
    Minstadave15/10/2019 19:31

    They use different types of flash.Sabrent is TLC which stores 3 bits of …They use different types of flash.Sabrent is TLC which stores 3 bits of data in every cell. Writing to TLC is relatively fast at about 500MB/s. Intel is QLC which stores 4 bits of data in every cell. Writing to QLC is really slow at 100MB/s (same as optical drives). It isn't as robust as TLC (you can't write to it as many times before it dies). Both use a cache when you write to the drive to achieve better performance. They use a portion of their flash chips as SLC (single level cells). Using TLC/QLC chips as SLC reduces the capacity of the drive alot. For a QLC drive to have a 256GB SLC cache uses 1TB of QLC chips, so there's a limit on how much cache is available, as the drive fills up in drops.If you write quickly to the drive the cache gets used up and then you're left writing directly to the TLC or QLC which is slower (as above) and in the case of QLC is really slow.If you write slowly or in small amounts the SLC data is shuffled onto the TLC or QLC, freeing up the cache. So for light to medium usage you never go see the performance penalty.


    thanks for the lesson. Genuinely very useful, and great to see people being so helpful and detailed in educating others. Cheers
  5. Roph's avatar
    biffothebear15/10/2019 18:04

    Is the difference enough to matter?


    For your regular user who's going to put their OS, personal files and some games on it, I wouldn't worry. If you're intending to use this in an 800GB database server or as a scratch disk for raw video editing, look for something else - even TLC I'd avoid.

    I upgraded to this drive last month from an old Samsung 840 I'd been using since early 2013 - before I pulled it I used samsung's software to check the writes and I'd written just under 50TB to it - daily main drive use (including torrents etc) since early 2013. I wouldn't worry about it.
  6. Minstadave's avatar
    deleted8366816/10/2019 12:23

    What consumer optical media achieves 100MB/s?Do you mean magnetic drives?


    I did indeed
  7. Minstadave's avatar
    Beehj8416/10/2019 16:49

    I was thinking of getting this purely as a secondary storage device for …I was thinking of getting this purely as a secondary storage device for games. It's basically the same price as a similar capacity SATA ssd so why not? I've already got a 960 Evo for my boot drive.Is that a good use? Is it worth spending a little more on the Sabrent drive (which is what I had my eye on)?


    Itll be absolutely fine for that.
  8. Minstadave's avatar
    Beehj8416/10/2019 17:00

    And is it worth spending extra on the Sabrent in your estimate? Both have …And is it worth spending extra on the Sabrent in your estimate? Both have a 5yr warranty, and I'm a bit of a hardware geek so swapping gear happens again in a few years likely. But the speeds are significantly faster, and the PS5 looking like it's having an equivalent to a PCIe Gen4 drive soldered next to the CPU package has me wondering...


    I'd only spend the extra if it's my main drive and I was a heavy user. For a second storage drive QLC is fine.

    PCIE4 SSDs give minimal real world benefits. (edited)
  9. wakkaday's avatar
    For data storage would this be ok
  10. Minstadave's avatar
    wakkaday14/10/2019 22:41

    For data storage would this be ok


    Absolutely fine, provided you dont try and write hundreds of GB in one go to it.
  11. Slurrpy's avatar
    Minstadave14/10/2019 20:07

    Good price for the capacity.If considering make sure you are aware of the …Good price for the capacity.If considering make sure you are aware of the limitations of QLC used in this drive compared with the TLC in the Sabrent Rocket at £110, which is a better performing drive.


    What's the difference?
  12. deleted83668's avatar
    What consumer optical media achieves 100MB/s?

    Do you mean magnetic drives?
  13. Beehj84's avatar
    Minstadave15/10/2019 19:31

    They use different types of flash.Sabrent is TLC which stores 3 bits of …They use different types of flash.Sabrent is TLC which stores 3 bits of data in every cell. Writing to TLC is relatively fast at about 500MB/s. Intel is QLC which stores 4 bits of data in every cell. Writing to QLC is really slow at 100MB/s (same as mechanical drives). It isn't as robust as TLC (you can't write to it as many times before it dies). Both use a cache when you write to the drive to achieve better performance. They use a portion of their flash chips as SLC (single level cells). Using TLC/QLC chips as SLC reduces the capacity of the drive alot. For a QLC drive to have a 256GB SLC cache uses 1TB of QLC chips, so there's a limit on how much cache is available, as the drive fills up in drops.If you write quickly to the drive the cache gets used up and then you're left writing directly to the TLC or QLC which is slower (as above) and in the case of QLC is really slow.If you write slowly or in small amounts the SLC data is shuffled onto the TLC or QLC, freeing up the cache. So for light to medium usage you never see the performance penalty.


    I was thinking of getting this purely as a secondary storage device for games. It's basically the same price as a similar capacity SATA ssd so why not? I've already got a 960 Evo for my boot drive.

    Is that a good use? Is it worth spending a little more on the Sabrent drive (which is what I had my eye on)?
  14. Beehj84's avatar
    Minstadave16/10/2019 16:56

    Itll be absolutely fine for that.


    And is it worth spending extra on the Sabrent in your estimate? Both have a 5yr warranty, and I'm a bit of a hardware geek so swapping gear happens again in a few years likely. But the speeds are significantly faster, and the PS5 looking like it's having an equivalent to a PCIe Gen4 drive soldered next to the CPU package has me wondering...
  15. Beehj84's avatar
    Minstadave16/10/2019 18:18

    I'd only spend the extra if it's my main drive and I was a heavy user. For …I'd only spend the extra if it's my main drive and I was a heavy user. For a second storage drive QLC is fine.PCIE4 SSDs give minimal real world benefits.


    Alright. It's on you now. I've ordered it!

    Regardles the PCIe4 equivalent SSD going in the PS5, we'll have to wait and see whether game design changes to take advantage of the new storage tech and leaves PCs loading games from regular SSDs behind or not. I'm betting there will be some tangible difference, but that it won't be game-changing (pun not intended). (edited)
's avatar