This deal is back at Amazon.
Previous deal: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/168197
Same price as before
Cheers
Rich
CamelCamelCamel.
Only going to get worse for quite a while. Make the most of it while it's still viable.
AUD 114.74 delivered using their conversion rates, still cheaper than buying from here.
Or ~$110.45 using 28 Degrees or Citibank Plus
According to amazon the read speed is 50mb/s but the 480gb one is 2400mb/s, wtf…
Not that great a deal anymore, unfortunately. The falling prices of SSDs and the falling AUD both contribute to this being an average deal. The Crucial M500 is already a few generations behind - the M550 and MX100 are both better.
But really, this isn't a great price - around $115 AUD. For my money, I'd just head down to MSY and grab the Sandisk Ultra Plus 256GB for $115. The Ultra Plus is probably around comparable with the M500, you get 16GB more storage and you get the benefit of getting your SSD today (or Monday if MSY is closed on Sunday) and you'll be enjoying your fast new SSD for ages before this one will get to you from Amazon.
While it is technically a generation behind, perform\nce-wise thre M550 and MX100 are both extremely minor improvments, at least based off the AnandTech benchmarks:
http://www.anandtech.com/print/7864/crucial-m550-review-128g…
http://www.anandtech.com/print/8066/crucial-mx100-256gb-512g…
perform\nce-wise thre M550 and MX100 are both extremely minor improvments, at least based off the AnandTech benchmarks:
…and they're differences that you wouldn't notice in real world computing.
From a reliability point of view I would prefer my changes with Crucial
The chances of your SSD failing are very small in the first place. Out of all of the components in your PC, your SSD isn't very high up on the list of components that are likely to fail early. Even given that, all of the top-tier SSD manufacturers such as Intel, Samsung, Crucial, Sandisk…etc. all have very low failure rates anyway. So SSD "reliability" shouldn't be a great concern as long as you're not buying into a brand or model which has a significant documented issue.
Unless you're actually planning to use your SSDs to host a database or to be consistently writing to them 24/7, then I wouldn't even bother with thinking about reliability. It's just a marketing tactic. Some company produces SSDs which have a few % less failures in some study and their marketing department will hype it up and get people to buy into their SSDs thinking they're more "reliable".
Of course, most people aren't statisticians and don't realise that the 1-2% difference in failure rates aren't even statistically significant at the widely accepted 5% significance level.
I'm gonna have to call bullshít on your view of the relevant statistics… every SSD I have installed in the last 2 years has gone phut, and the only other component that has died in that time was the known-faulty nVidia video card in an old Dell D630.
That's - count 'em - 3 SSDs (two OCZs and a Samsung)… all dead before they hit their first birthday, and all with sensitive information on them that precludes any remediation that entails return-to-manufacturer.
Obviously that's not a large enough sample to appeal to a CLT or LOLN, but it's more than moderately persuasive.
SSDs (regardless of brand) are about as reliable as the new-fangled $6 "good for 20,000 hours" lightbulbs - of which I have purchased 30-odd in the last three years, with 60% of them dead within a year.
Also - not for nothin', but the Australian Consumer Law could give a shït about the significance level chosen for MTTF calculations: if something of significant economic value dies before "a reasonable person" would think it ought to, you have a good chance of making out a case. Given that most magistrates (and all VCAT 'Members') are utterly innumerate, even mentioning a significance level as a defence would alienate them; mention 'regression' and they will bust a vein.
FWIW my degree isn't in stats, but it's in econometrics - and it was a First, top of my year, top of my Masters year, priority scholarship for PhD, Reserve Bank cadetship, Vice Chancellor's student research fellowship, consulted to Cwlth Treasury/Defence/VicDoJ and 20-30 members of the ASX100. So I can 'do the math' in my sleep, so let's have a conversation about MTTF or any other statistical metric you'd care to enumerate.
With all that by way of misdirection… I bought one of these. lol.
Stick to intel if you have low confidence for ssds or you value your data…I've had 5 in the past with 100 percent non failure rate… 2 intel, 2 Samsung, 1 ocz.
My oldest SSDs are Intel x-25m, at least 3 years old, maybe 4. All 3 of them still going strong.
That's - count 'em - 3 SSDs (two OCZs and a Samsung)… all dead before they hit their first birthday, and all with sensitive information on them that precludes any remediation that entails return-to-manufacturer.
OCZ SSDs are known to be particularly unreliable. Have a Google of it - that's why they went bust before someone (Toshiba I think it was, correct me if I'm wrong) bought them out. So really, that's not a fair view on SSDs in general.
Personally, I've had no SSDs fail. One of them is an Intel 520 which has clocked over 10,000 hrs. So, you know, perhaps you're just unlucky and I'm just lucky.
Also - not for nothin', but the Australian Consumer Law could give a shït about the significance level chosen for MTTF calculations: if something of significant economic value dies before "a reasonable person" would think it ought to, you have a good chance of making out a case. Given that most magistrates (and all VCAT 'Members') are utterly innumerate, even mentioning a significance level as a defence would alienate them; mention 'regression' and they will bust a vein.
Sighs, statutory warranty - are you really going to take it to pay the tribunal fee over an SSD which probably cost you $100? That's the problem - laws are great in theory, in practice - not so much.
FWIW my degree isn't in stats, but it's in econometrics - and it was a First, top of my year, top of my Masters year, priority scholarship for PhD, Reserve Bank cadetship, Vice Chancellor's student research fellowship, consulted to Cwlth Treasury/Defence/VicDoJ and 20-30 members of the ASX100. So I can 'do the math' in my sleep, so let's have a conversation about MTTF or any other statistical metric you'd care to enumerate.
Really? I'm an Econometrics guy as well. I would love to sit around and banter about what hypothesis tests we could perform on data regarding SSD reliability, but that data's just not available.
two OCZs and a Samsung
As said by others, that's not surprising. As also said by others, I have Intel and Crucial SSD's that are 4 years old (yep, that Crucial C300 and Intel 330? are still going strong).
Built my PC 4 years ago and the first thing to fail was my SSD then a hard drive a year later. I really don't trust them with important data.
I have to agree with this. I have had 2 Crucial SSD disks, and both have been rock solid reliable and fast.
Not saying other brands aren't, just saying that I'm likely to stick with Crucial based on my own experience.
Argh our dollar is not in a good shape