Crucial P1 SSD M.2 PCIe NVMe 500GB $86.40 + Delivery ($0 with eBay Plus) @ Futu Online eBay

Related Stores

eBay Australia

Marketplace

Shopping Express

• 

  vid_ghost on 28/08/2019 - 12:38

  +1

  I have so many SSD's. Why do i feel like i want more.

  • 

    codinghelloworld on 28/08/2019 - 12:40

    Maybe install to a Nas for caching?

    • 

      MackemAB on 28/08/2019 - 12:51

      +1

      NVME server please.

  • 

    fastnet on 28/08/2019 - 13:42

    Once you start, you can't stop!

    I have so many Intel 660P SSDs, I stopped at 2TB because there's nothing bigger than that, yet ;)

• 

  ssquid on 28/08/2019 - 13:21

  +5

  Don't get Crucial P1s.
  They use a mix of QLC (slow) with SLC (fast) cache. If the write rate is sustained for long enough to fill the cache, performance slows to an absolute crawl.

  • 

    sghetti on 28/08/2019 - 14:29

    Yep, and the majority of users won’t hit that bottleneck…

    • 

      ssquid on 28/08/2019 - 15:38

      +1

      All it takes is writing a file (or collection of files) larger than ~12GB. That's less than an average 4K movie. Then on top of the full cache it starts to throttle due to excessive temperature, slowing down even more.

      • 

        sghetti on 28/08/2019 - 18:15

        Not sure where you’re getting your info from.

        From a TomsHardware review/benchmark:

        As well as performing well in our game load test, Crucial’s P1 performs well in our real-world file copy and read tests, though there is some room for improvement. The SLC cache was enough to handle our 50GB file folder and rank it fourth overall on our chart. The 6GB read test shows performance that is more than double what SATA SSDs are capable of, but is much lower than many of the better-performing NVMe competitors.

        There are certainly some scenarios that it will underperform in, but 12gb is rubbish and scaremongering. It’s very similar to the Intel 660p which I’m able to write to at about 1.2-1.5gb/s which is more than respectable over a sata ssd

        • 

          ssquid on 28/08/2019 - 21:43

          @sghetti: From the same review:

          The drive has a fixed SLC buffer capacity of 5GB on the 500GB drive and 12GB on the 1TB model.

          That's the dedicated cache; there is additional dynamic cache depending on how empty the drive is. This is obvious in the results from their sustained write test where the speed drops to ~100MB/s when the 150GB cache is full. So even when the drive is completely empty, it can only handle less than 90 seconds of constant writing before it slows to a crawl.

          Crucial support pretends this issue does not exist: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/474095#comment-7564574

          • 

            sghetti on 29/08/2019 - 00:23

            +1

            @ssquid: And how often is a regular user going to be filling up the 150gb cache? That is not a normal use case and is being seen in a benchmark that is designed to push electronics to their limits.

            I’m running a Samsung 970 Evo Plus 500gb as my OS drive and an Intel 660p 1tb which is very similar to the Crucial drive. I’ve never had a single issue with it. Installed all of my apps and games, copied data (photos etc.) to it.

            If you’re going to be doing huge and consistent writes to the drive, you’ve got a different use case and I’d argue that it’s not a normal use case. Benchmarks are designed to stress the drive, often well above what any real world use would see, of course you’re going to see pitfalls. These drives are almost half the price of a Samsung drive with double the capacity.

            I’d see there definitely being value for money in a drive like this for a standard setup where you want to install games of programs and run them from this drive.

  • 

    51kabunka on 28/08/2019 - 14:36

    Yeah read write/speeds arn't that great on the Crucial 500s…

• 

  petry on 28/08/2019 - 13:34

  +1

  weren't these 76?