Why are these so praised? Will I feel any difference over

>>58495528
They've been going down a lot recently.

$250/1TB was the Black Friday price. Next November should be even lower.

they ARE cheaper SSDs

850 evo = old stock and TLC

>>58495552
I know there are much more expensive SSDs, but among TLC these seem to be the more expensive ones

>>58495528
praised? more like shilled. samsung is infamous for shilling on online forums and for spending millions on PR. just buy a fucking SSD... don't buy the brand.

>>58495591
Next thing you know Anon will cry on /g/ about how he bought a shitty Western Digital SSD.

>>58495552
Exactly, do yourself a favor and cough up the money for an 850 PRO. Your wallet might be hit now, but you'll be thanking yourself 5 years later.

>>58495614
no he won't, they have a 5 year warranty anyway and by 5 years it'll probably be slow and gay/valueless

>>58495528
They will last longer, that's basically what the higher end SSDs do over the cheaper ones.

>>58495636
>Samsung
>higher end

>>58495614
Buying a Pro is wasting your money if you backup your data regularly.

By the time your EVO dies, SDD will be much larger, cheaper and reliable than nowadays 850 PRO.

Buy a crucial mx200/mx300 instead, it's faster and uses 16nm MLC, while the Samsung uses 40nm TLC and costs more.

>>58495689
>it's faster
>implying you will notice any difference

>>58495635
>they have a 5 year warranty anyway
EVOs have 5 year, PROs have 10 years. That's right. One. Fucking. Decade. It could shit the bed for non-endurance related reasons, and yet Samsung will still say "yeah sure we'll just hook you up with a newer SSD" which will probably also be of a greater capacity.
>>58495665
You should be spending money because you *want* to upgrade, not because you need to.

>>58495689
Crucial's MX line got sodomized with TLC as of the MX300. Sad, I thought that it was a typo and it was supposed to be BX (which is TLC as of BX200), but nope.

>>58495701
No point in paying more for something slower

>>58495708
Lame, mx200 is cheap now anyways, 1tb ones are like $250

>>58495528
There should only be two options for SSDs.

1) The best value SATA AHCI SSD currently around. I got a 256 GB Crucial BX100 nearly two years ago, but now I wouldn't get less than 500 GB.
2) A Samsung 960 EVO if you have an M.2 slot that supports NVMe PCIe SSDs. I'll be getting the 1 TB when I upgrade my desktop.

>>58495702
>PROs have 10 years

Not really. It's 10 Years or 300 TB written, whichever comes first, if it's the >=500 GB models.

The 128 and 256 GB models only have 150 written TB of warranty.

>>58495733
Compare that to what, 75 TB for EVOs?

>>58495764
120 and 250 GB models have, indeed, 75 TBW. But 500 GB and greater have 150 TBW, the same as the small PROs.

>>58495528

no idea about that drive, but the 850 pro is a monster. and with a 10 year warranty and infinite lifespan.

it was a good purchase.

the only thing thats flawed is the sequential read/write performance of a m.2 drive, but that only helps when copying large files, it makes no difference otherwise, (for example game load times etc, its all the same)

>>58495528
Things you want to look at when buying a SSD:
- Memory type: SLC, TLC, MLC or some variaten (Samsung), each have pros and cons
- Controller (avoid Sandforce)
- TRIM support
- Power surge protection
- IOPS - 4K random, though all consumer drives advertise numbers they wont reach even in a best case scenario.

Don't get the Samsung pro's for personal use. Waste of money. Just get a faster bigger one for less in ~5 years.

Also be careful with Samsung 960 SSDs, they are known to overheat and slow down without DIY heatsink. Get an Intel 750 instead.

>>58495903
>Also be careful with Samsung 960 SSDs, they are known to overheat and slow down without DIY heatsink. Get an Intel 750 instead.
Yeah I read about that. They still easily offer the best bang-for-buck performance though, even over the Intel 750. If I were to buy one, I'd definitely buy those little heatsinks - only $5 and worth it to avoid throttling.

Also looking for a SSD, let's say I have these options

Sandisk Plus 480GB - 130€
Crucial MX300 525GB - 130€
Samsung 850 EVO 500GB - 160€

which one should I go for?

>>58496068
Samsung.

>>58496074
Aggressive marketing is real.

>>58496068
It doesn't matter. /g/ (and other places) talking about HW reliability is pure quackery. Unless you find some big company running thousands of each drive for years and releasing their results, it's all noise.

>>58496447
Well too bad Backblaze's use case is downright uneconomical for at least a few more years.

>>58496068

MX300.

You didn't state any other needs or uses, so for general use it'll be impossible to tell the difference in performance with the others. Crucial is pretty solid, Sandisk is an asshole company that's a nightmare to get support from (of which I have personal experience). The EVO is not worth 30€ more ... in fact, it's almost not worth it compared to the mx300 if they were the same price.

Since you're not looking at PCIe SSDs for extreme performance, it's clear the mx300 will be indistinguishable from anything else in your budget range.

One other option if you find it cheap enough: the ADATA SU800 512 GB . I picked one up for $100 over Thanksgiving, but I see them for $119 a lot right now. If you were able to find one for 120€ or under, like even 100€, it would have all the performance you can wish for and is still a reliable product.

If none of these models meets your needs regarding their performance, then you should be looking at PCIe SSDs. And something like 250€ to 300€ or more.