Pro vs Evo 250GB

[DanceswithUnix]

Which still makes the M500 a more reliable drive than the 840 EVO.

Don't get that. AIUI they use different mechanisms to achieve an identical result. If an entire chip dies, you don't lose data. Job done.

So yes of the two I would buy the M500, but I have yet to see any evidence that the Samsung is in any way bad. It is overpriced, but then that is marketing for you. They get the best benchmark results:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/807?vs=965

so they get to charge more. I know that is rubbish, you know it is rubbish, but benchmarks do win sales even when in real life it doesn't matter.

[mazty]

Which still makes the M500 a more reliable drive than the 840 EVO. RAIN is a feature taken from the Crucial/Micron commerical SSDs.

Have people forgotten,we have gone through this before?? The Intel drives were usually much slower than many competing drives,but in terms of reliability were very good. If price is not a concern they still are the best AFAIK looking at the published data on failures.

Samsung is like Corsair,they caught the market with products using expensive parts,and then quietly use the cheapest stuff they can get away with,while trading on the goodwill of their earlier products.

There is NO excuse for a TLC drive to be more expensive than a MLC drive AT ALL,outside padding the bottom line of Samsung.

The drive speed differences are not really that noticeable. I have an ancient OCZ Vertex 60GB and a much faster Kingston 3K 120GB. I couldn't tell the difference between the two,on both an AMD system,and my SB based system using SATA3!!

My mates with various earlier and later generation SSDs say EXACTLY the same and they use SATA3 too.

The only way you can tell the difference is through using benchmark tools,ie,E-PEEN.

The M500 is cheaper than the 840 EVO. I think people are getting rather warm feelings about the Samsung brand now,and I recommended the 830 myself quite a few times.

To summarise the M500 is cheaper,it has more data redundancy features built in,and even uses a more expensive kind of NAND to boot.

The cheapest 840 EVO 250GB is £99:

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/sams...amazon-1851881

The cheapest M500 240GB is £82:

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/cruc...ebuyer-1854634

Why the heck would I spend 21% more for the 840 EVO??

To do what with?? Windows will load 1 second quicker or something??

I get the Samsung glow on me??

The buzz of high CrystalDiskMark scores??

If the drives were EXACTLY the same price,there might even be an argument that the Samsung offers a bit more storage.

However,not with the massive price premium.

Once the M550 replaces the M500 at its current(or a slightly higher price) and the M500 is discontinued,the storage advantage of the EVO will be gone.

Edit!!

Even look at the larger capacity drives.

The Crucial M500 480GB is faster than the 240GB version and costs £170:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crucial-CT48...ial+m500+480gb

The Samsung EVO 500GB costs £203:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-500G...ords=evo+500gb

That is still another 20% premium.

It gets closer at the highest capacities:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crucial-960G...ial+M500+960GB
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-Basi...ywords=evo+1tb

That is still a £40 premium.

The Samsung TLC drives are just overpriced IMHO.

I would rather put the money saved into something else in my PC.

I won't lie but one reason I prefer the Samsung over the crucial is it's appearance. I'm trying to go for a nice, clean build and sadly the somewhat brash labelling would ruin it.