[Solved] Best Budget SSD for System: Crucial BX500 vs. Kingston A400 – TLC vs. MLC Comparison

Hello.

I need your help in purchasing an SSD drive for my system.
After going through Google, I chose two drives:
https://www.ceneo.pl/57482162
https://www.ceneo.pl/47753209
I know these drives are down-to-the-counter, but I don't want to spend a lot of money on a drive that is only meant to be system and programs. Maybe you can recommend me some reasonably good disk and cheap for the system, these disks are under TLC or really the TLC disks are not worth buying, but buying under MLC, I think you will help.

The CX400 has no more pluses apart from the price. The recommended BX500 will be a better choice. The controller is slightly better, and so is the overall performance.

So it's better to buy BX500, but 120 GB is enough for Windows 7 64 bit and some light programs, drivers?

Yes, it will do. Although the difference between the 240GB version is not that big and it is really worth adding. 120GB will get clogged up quickly.

Only 240 GB is more expensive, because I'm going to buy a HDD for games, music, movies.
The SSD will have Windows, updates, drivers, antivirus, some lightweight software, and nothing else.

But do you also laugh that people advise against buying TLC disks, even now I read comments about the disks you gave, e.g. bx 500, that they advise against buying it.

Sure, the MLCs are better, but you're looking for a budget drive so you don't get much maneuver. You want a better MLC - A-data SU900 is reasonably priced.

A properly designed TLC drive will have a lot of cache memory and will use it wisely. This is why, for example, Samsung's EVO series, despite the TLC memory, turned out to be a success and it's hard to find negative reviews.

By the way - TLC with a good controller and correct buffering will still pass, now the new "evil" are QLC memories and in a moment the TLC will be the good ones, the QLC will be the bad ones.

I have a 120 GB disk, win 8.1 and I have 50 GB of free space and I have installed programs that weigh about 20 GB. I think it should be fine if you use the HDD as storage for other programs.

For sure, only the question of profitability will suffice.
Other things that are not taken into account:
A 240GB disk is usually faster than 120GB
The 240GB drive is harder to clog with normal use to the point where its performance deterioration begins
On a 240GB disk clogged, like a 120GB disk, we will have a lot more free space, so a lot more cells to rotate - in theory, this disk should wear out slower (and this is generally reflected in the warranty - larger disks have lower TBW limitations).

icooz wrote:

I have a 120 GB disk, win 8.1 and I have 50 GB of free space and I have installed programs that weigh about 20 GB. I think it should be fine if you use the HDD as storage for other programs.

And what kind of ssd do you have and how long do you have it

I have had it since October 2016. Samsung MZ7LF128HCHP-00004 128GB, works without problems, although it would be good to replace it with a better model. I wonder how many more he will take. The second drive on my X555LJ-XO695H laptop is HGST HTS541010A9E680 1000.2GB.


Added after 2 [minutes]:

And this is what the folder structure on an SSD looks like.


Except that what dt1 wrote that 128 GB discs are slower than 256 GB is true. I suggest you buy one with a higher capacity.

Yes, it is slower, but there is no point in buying 256 GB because of the speed, because I have a motherboard with SATA II, so the speed will be average, but the speed will be very noticeable, because popular HDDs reach speeds of an average of 170- 190 MB / s and mine is around 100 MB / s.

190MB / s can be achieved on HDD under ideal conditions, the system disk in many situations may not be able to read even 10MB / s. Try to read several files at the same time, and on a system drive running Windows (especially newer Windows) this is normal.

When it comes to disk performance, you also only consider the muck of the packaging marketing. 500MB / s, 300MB / s ... What's the difference? An SSD drive does not always work with large files, sometimes it works with several dozen smaller files at the same time, especially if it is a system drive. And it will not achieve a bandwidth close to the maximum. The differences with a large number of smaller files are visible even with the SATA II interface, because in such situations SATA SSDs do not even reach the limit of the SATA II interface.

All my life I only sit on HDDs, I sold a few months ago an old computer from 2008 with a ten-year-old HDD, it worked without problems, but it started to walk louder but it was ok and I bought a used better computer and also with a HDD and I thought that maybe it's time to change the disk from HDD to SSD, because it is known on these disks the computer gets a second life, but I still hesitate about this change, I wanted to buy a 120 GB disk for about PLN 100 only for the system and programs only I have this fear that the disk may work for half a year or 2 years and it will go trash.

You can hit that. Although out of several hundred SSDs, so far I have only found 3 that have fallen. All under warranty. Statistically, it is much better than with HDD, which in recent times are probably getting worse - every fourth, maybe every fifth (more or less) disk I buy dies during the warranty period (or at least it manages to get a few unstable sectors) which can sometimes be corrected with records, but the aversion to such a disk remains, and unstable sectors usually appear sooner or later).

So when it comes to SSD failure rate - especially when buying a decent one - the chances of a pad are lower.

By the way - SSDs fall down less often, but usually when it happens, you can't recover anything at home. With a partially massacred HDD, you can still fight and often something can be recovered, sometimes even quite a lot, if you quickly notice that the disk is starting to rain.

Tomequ123 wrote:

kelvin0909 wrote:

I just have this fear that the drive may work for six months or two years and will go to the trash.

Why?

For PLN 140 you already have 2x more capacity, you could give up HDD at all if you don't have many programs.

For PLN 140 I have a 256 GB disk but it is not enough, if I had to buy a 500 GB disk but such an SSD is expensive so I thought I would buy a 120 GB SSD disk and + 500 GB HDD disk.

kelvin0909 wrote:

that I will buy a 120 GB SSD and + 500 GB HDD

nowadays it is not profitable to buy 120 GB SSD or 500 GB HDD, it's a matter of how much you pay for one GB, for example, such a Toshiba P300 500 GB drive costs PLN 155 is ~ 30 cents for 1 GB, and P300 1TB costs PLN 165 is ~ 16 cents for 1 GB it's exactly the same with SSDs, I don't know why you insisted on 120 SSDs so much

Tomequ123 wrote:

Because you do not know and do not understand the benefits of buying and using SSD, despite several posts on this topic.

I want to buy a 120GB SSD for PLN 100 and a 500GB HDD for PLN 150, while for PLN 50 more (PLN 300) there are already great 500GB SSDs (and you do not need to buy a Crucial MX500 500GB, you can cheaper, then the price is the same).
But some people you can't explain. They ask for advice on the forum, and they know better.

https://allegro.pl/oferta/dysk-ssd-crucial-bx500-120gb-540mb-s-wewnetrzny-7887855714 SSD drive

https://allegro.pl/oferta/dysk-twardy-seagate...-5-sata-3-16mb-7200-7648419394#productReviews HDD drive

In total, I will get PLN 167, besides, I do not have enough money to spend as much as PLN 300 on the disk.

Added after 4 [minutes]:

tuco27 wrote:

kelvin0909 wrote:

that I will buy a 120 GB SSD and + 500 GB HDD

nowadays it is not profitable to buy 120 GB SSD or 500 GB HDD, it's a matter of how much you pay for one GB, for example, such a Toshiba P300 500 GB drive costs PLN 155 is ~ 30 cents for 1 GB, and P300 1TB costs PLN 165 is ~ 16 cents for 1 GB it's exactly the same with SSDs, I don't know why you insisted on 120 SSDs so much

But you understand why I should spend as much as PLN 150 on a HDD, if there are better offers, e.g. a 500 GB seagate disk for PLN 54, how can it not pay off, as 120 GB is enough for the system, as at the moment the whole system, programs and updates take up m and 45 GB.

Adata 240GB SU650 SSD drive or this drive would be ok.

So the Adata 240GB SU650 SSD is crap on the SLC dice, but the Crucial 120GB BX500 on the TLC dice is better.

The SU650 was not near the SLC. The SU650 has TLC 3D memories, it also has an SLC simulation buffer (i.e. all three bits of TLC memory are switched simultaneously, effectively giving only the ability to code two states - like SLC). In principle, the performance of the SU650 is close to that of the BX500. In SU650 I am a bit scared off by an exotic controller, which I have not seen in any other product, but somehow it works there (although on the other hand it may be a lottery, because in some tests they write about Maxio MAS09024-B2C, and in others they have already found SMI SM2258XT ).

It is best to buy a BX 500 240 GB, so it will be the best choice.

Tomequ123 wrote:

The BX 500 is ok for such a cheap drive.

And how to buy a BX 500 120 GB for the system and a 500 GB HDD that I gave in the link at the top, then I will get about 600 GB, at the moment I have a 232 GB drive, if I buy a 240 GB SSD drive, I will have a total of over 400 GB so what should i do i just SSD, i need nothing more for the system.

If you absolutely want to save 40 zlotys, buy 120GB, because you have been writing about it for 30 posts. You got arguments why you should buy 240GB - nothing new in this topic will come up. Buy yourself 120, 240GB, or how much is right.