Crucial MX500 4TB Benchmark and Bait and Switch Drama Controversy

LMrChumps on 14/03/2023 - 05:00
Last edited 14/03/2023 - 08:23 by 1 other user

So recently from what I have seen on Ozbargain there has been a bait and switch of internal components of SSDs done by Crucial in the MX500 lineup by having good compenents in the SSD for awhile and then silently switching them to poorer parts and masking them as the good product hoping to get more profit out of them and not making another SKU or another lineup denoting the change in internal components of an SSD.

This table created by Netsurfer shows the amount of variations within a model lineup. To explain this. That if you buy MX500 Crucial 500GB for example. You may get a Crucial MX500 500GB that can be different in terms of performance of another Crucial MX500 500GB and the customer won't know the difference.

250 GB 500 GB 1 TB 2TB 4TB
Form Factor SATA 2.5" SATA 2.5" SATA 2.5" SATA 2.5" SATA 2.5"
Interface AHCI AHCI AHCI AHCI AHCI
Controller Var 1: Silicon Motion SM2258 Silicon Motion SM2258 Silicon Motion SM2258 Silicon Motion SM2258 Silicon Motion SM2258
Var 2: Silicon Motion SM2259 Silicon Motion SM2259 Silicon Motion SM2259 Silicon Motion SM2259 Silicon Motion SM2259
DRAM/HMB Var 1: 256MB DDR3/DDR3L 512MB DDR3/DDR3L 1GB DDR3/DDR3L 2GB DDR3/DDR3L 512MB DDR3/DDR3L
Var 2: 512MB DDR3/DDR3L 512MB DDR3/DDR3L
NAND Var 1: Micron TLC 64-layer B16A 256Gb Micron TLC 64-layer B16A 256Gb Micron TLC 64-layer B16A 256Gb Micron TLC 64-layer B17A 512Gb Micron TLC 64-layer B17A 512Gb
Var 2: Micron TLC 64-layer B17A 512Gb Micron TLC 64-layer B17A 512Gb Micron TLC 64-layer B17A 512Gb Micron TLC 96-layer B27B 512Gb Micron TLC 96-layer B27B 512Gb
Var 3: Micron TLC 96-layer B27A 512Gb Micron TLC 96-layer B27A 512Gb Micron TLC 96-layer B27A 512Gb Micron TLC 128-layer B37R 512Gb Micron TLC 128-layer B37R 512Gb
Var 4: Micron TLC 96-layer B27B 512Gb Micron TLC 96-layer B27B 512Gb Micron TLC 96-layer B27B 512Gb Micron TLC 176-layer B47R 512Gb Micron TLC 176-layer B47R 512Gb
Var 5: Micron TLC 128-layer B37R 512Gb Micron TLC 128-layer B37R 512Gb Micron TLC 128-layer B37R 512Gb Micron QLC 64-layer N18A 1Tb Micron QLC 64-layer N18A 1Tb
Var 6: Micron TLC 176-layer B47R 512Gb Micron TLC 176-layer B47R 512Gb Micron TLC 176-layer B47R 512Gb Micron QLC 96-layer N28A 1Tb Micron QLC 96-layer N28A 1Tb
Sequential Read (up to) [MBps] 560 560 560 560 560
Sequential Write (up to) [MBps] 510 510 510 510 520
Random Read (up to) [IOPs] 95000 95000 95000 95000 95000
Random Write (up to) [IOPs] 90000 90000 90000 90000 90000
Cryptography 256bit AES, TCG Opal 2.0 256bit AES, TCG Opal 2.0 256bit AES, TCG Opal 2.0 256bit AES, TCG Opal 2.0 256bit AES, TCG Opal 2.0
Durability (TBW) [TB] 100 180 360 700 1000
MTBF [million hours] 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
Part Number CT250MX500SSD1 CT500MX500SSD1 CT1000MX500SSD1 CT2000MX500SSD1 CT4000MX500SSD1
Warranty [years] 5 5 5 5 5

This is a well known problem that is not just done by Crucial but other manufactuers as well. Example 1 Example 2

With this knowledge that I have gained from other users in the Ozbargain Tech Deals comment section about this bait and switch on this SSD. I decided to gamble on a purchase of two Crucial MX500 4TB. SSDs from Centre Com. Luckily, I apparently got the good ones according to netsurfer. I'm just happy that they are TLC.I have decided to spend a morning doing two benchmarks on one of my Crucial MX500 4TB SSDs. Transferring a large amount of data in a real world scenario. A single large 1.49TB file compressed and an uncompressed 1.6TB file transfer with 1.8 billion files in that file transfer.

I have uploaded an entire video showing both file transfers on my Windows 10 machine. Here. Timestamps are in the description.

If your thinking about this post saying that Crucial is bad for doing this.It's not just them other manufactures have been doing it as well.If you think that your shiny new Crucial SSD is going to kick the bucket soon. Have backups of that data you have stored on your drive and have checkups on those backups if they are actually there. Stuff breaks eventaully. including SSDs regardless of brand.

Computing 4TB Computer Component Crucial SSD

Comments

  • garetz on 14/03/2023 - 07:33
    +1

    This has happened with many nvmes/ssds as prices drop they enact cost saving measures which means lower quality nand otherwise they cannot stay competitive.

    • Sinnerator on 14/03/2023 - 07:49
      +4

      Needing to be deceitful to stay competitive means your business, and when large scale society, is broken.

      • pharkurnell on 14/03/2023 - 11:33

        welcome to reality ;)

  • StrayfireX on 14/03/2023 - 11:20

    Happened to me with a Crucial P2. Ended up being a QLC instead of a TLC drive. Really bad practice.

    "For instance, the QLC version of the drive performs at roughly one-quarter the speed of the original when transferring files, read speeds are half as fast in real-world tests, and sustained write speeds have dropped to USB 2.0-like levels of a mere 40 MBps. That’s slower than most hard drives. Unfortunately Crucial made the change without altering the product name or number or issuing an announcement."

  • Look Up on 14/03/2023 - 11:53
    +2

    Seagate just pulled the same BS with the FireCuda 520

    Original: ZP2000GM3A002 / 3600 TBW endurance
    New: ZP2000GV3A012 / 1200 TBW endurance

    Shrinkflation is rampant and US companies like Micron/Crucial and Seagate are leading the way

    Western Digital and Samsung are OK for the moment as they manufacture both the controllers and NAND themselves

    • Clear on 14/03/2023 - 15:29
      +1

      Samsung will typically change their model numbers slightly to account for a change in controllers etc. too.

  • OMGJL on 14/03/2023 - 14:23

    even then you don't see much other SATA SSD better than Crucial MX500

    when everyone cut corner, the company who does it the least wins.

    This is like any NAND manufacturers,

    I've seen GSkill send reviewer/Youtuber the god tier Samsung B-Die which can achieve way more aggressive timing yet using lower voltage than my kit under the same model number.

  • jwh on 14/03/2023 - 14:29
    +1

    To some extent, it has resulted in decision paralysis for me in wanting to buy a new SSD to replace my smallish 256GB main drive.

    But then I'm also saving money by not buying something I don't really need just yet, so it's a win/win.

    • MrChumps on 14/03/2023 - 14:44
      -1

      If your feeling constrained of your small 256GB SSD. Spend the little extra and get a Samsung drive than other brands. As far as I know. They haven't done anything dirty and you know what you are getting for.

      • OMGJL on 14/03/2023 - 17:39

        0E issue was fixed by a firmware update. I wonder they fixed it or hide it somehow.

  • PredatorvsAlien on 01/04/2023 - 02:07

    So only the 4TB is worth getting? and where from…

  • dotJaz on 12/05/2023 - 18:42

    I just bought a 2TB B47R/512MB

  • patrick321 on 29/09/2023 - 18:05

    Can anyone tell me how to test the drive and get this info. What did you use @MrChumps ? or maybe @netsurfer can tell me?

    I did look around and found this windows program 'smi_flash_id-v0.567a' from a Russian guy but not sure if it will do the trick. A Linux command or program would be better.

    • netsurfer on 29/09/2023 - 18:57
      +1

      I am surprised someone replied to this after so many months.

      You can use the following utility:
      http://vlo.name:3000/tmph/smi_flash_id.rar

      Source page: http://vlo.name:3000/ssdtool/

      If you are a linux person, then maybe try one of those recovery boot USB setup which might include an option to boot to a basic Windows 10 that may let you run the utility.
      I do not know whether that utility works or not because with SATA and SMI, you might need different utilities depending on the chipset. Hopefully, it works.

      For linux, you could try:

      lshw -class disk -class storage

      assuming you have lshw installed. However, last time I tried that, I found it doesn't have sufficient details.

      • patrick321 on 29/09/2023 - 21:58

        Thanks for the info, I am looking to get this drive next time it comes on sale and if it's not what it should be I will be returning it.

        I prefer Linux but also have a Win. machine offline.

  • Chiyoko on 30/04/2024 - 15:29

    What SSDs would you suggest nowadays?

    I have researched and found out that the Samsung EVO 870 has also undergone some hardware changes. Since I engage in extensive screen capturing, I require a drive with high TBW.

    Would it be advisable to go for Patriot drives and replace them periodically? Is that going to work for me economically? I have noticed that those drives lack DRAM, so I am uncertain if their speed would meet my needs.

    I am currently using a Sandisk Ultra SSD as my boot and record drive but it is down to around 70% health…

  • Squall Leonhart on 04/08/2024 - 19:14

    You are fundamentally misinformed,

    the nand and controller used in the original release had a bug that caused the nand to write itself into early death by rewriting data it incorrectly believed to be stale, the new nand and controllers do not suffer this issue.

    For the 4TB, none of the variants you have suggested existed ever did, it has only ever been released in the SM2259 and 176 layer nand configuration.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join