Crucial quietly adds 4TB SATA SSD to its MX500 family

[Shawn Knight]

In brief: Most hardware enthusiasts with a serious need for speed have since moved past SATA-based storage, but in certain circumstances, a large-capacity SATA SSD still might be the best option. And if you fall into that category, Crucial’s new drive could be of interest.

The latest addition to the MX500 family of SSDs from Crucial is a spacious 4TB SATA variant. According to Crucial’s specs sheet, the drive is rated at up to 560 MB/s sequential read speeds and 510 MB/s sequential writes, which is in the same range as competing drives and near the top of the interface's max bandwidth throughput of 600 MB/s.

SSD endurance is listed at 360 terabytes written (TBW); Tom’s Hardware claims the drive is rated for 1,000 TBW, but we can’t verify that (it’s possible that Crucial simply hasn’t fully updated its product page yet). Crucial does say the drive comes backed by a five-year limited warranty, however.

Related reading: The Best SSDs and PC Storage

If you need something in the same capacity ballpark with a bit more endurance, perhaps check out Kingston’s Data Center DC450R. You’ll sacrifice a bit of capacity (it only affords 3.84TB of space) and it’ll cost you an extra $210, but it is rated at 2,823 TBW and is also backed by a five-year warranty.

As mentioned, this is an internal SATA drive, meaning it sticks to the standard 2.5-inch (7mm) form factor. It does come with a 9.5mm adapter, should you need it.

The Crucial MX500 4TB is listed for $359.99 over on Crucial’s website.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/91465-crucial-quietly-adds-4tb-sata-ssd-mx500-family.html

 

[Beerfloat]

Large capacity and non-QLC is pretty useful for a lot of purposes.

 

[Revolution 11]

Large capacity and non-QLC is pretty useful for a lot of purposes.

This looks like a nice 4TB SATA SSD. It is even $13 cheaper than Samsung's 870 QVO drive which uses QLC.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

Large capacity and non-QLC is pretty useful for a lot of purposes.

I've been using Crucial's MX500 2TB for years and a Samsung QLC 8TB.

I'll never understand why people knock QLC. These are great for gamers and casual PC users. Yes: the pros may want to spend more for more rewriteability and more speed, but my QLC 8TB and Crucials perform roughly identical UNLESS you were benchmarking them. To the human senses, they are fast, reliable and offer great storage.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

I'd hoped we'd be further along with SSD capacity by now.
I expected 10TB and 20TB SSD by now.

4TB models are great - especially at under $400 - and this one looks good.

 

[Beerfloat]

I'll never understand why people knock QLC. These are great for gamers and casual PC users.

Sure. Sometimes you want maximum capacity and QLC is fine for that.
I’m just glad to see manufacturers are not abandoning TLC altogether yet for larger drives, for those cases where you‘re looking for more write performance and endurance.
You shouldn’t have to go all the way to the other side of the spectrum to enterprise SAS SSDs if you’re looking for a different compromise.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

I've been using Crucial's MX500 2TB for years and a Samsung QLC 8TB.

I'll never understand why people knock QLC. These are great for gamers and casual PC users. Yes: the pros may want to spend more for more rewriteability and more speed, but my QLC 8TB and Crucials perform roughly identical UNLESS you were benchmarking them. To the human senses, they are fast, reliable and offer great storage.

If you dont understand why users knock QLC, I guess you just have ignored everything they've said? QLC has noticeably lower endurance, horrific performance when over 75% full, attrocious HDD level performance when writing larger files, and it's not noticeably cheaper then TLC SSDs.

QLC drives are "fast" to the human senses in the same way a base model crossover is "fast" and "sporty" to your average user, whom could barely tell a yugo from a ferrari if it wern't for the badge.

 

[Lew Zealand]

If you dont understand why users knock QLC, I guess you just have ignored efverything they've said? QLC has noticeeably lower endurance, horrific performance when over 75% full, attrocious HDD level performance when writing larger files, and it's not noticeably cheaper then TLC SSDs.

Somehow I doubt QP would put up with atrocious performance and Samsung's is at least a decent QLC drive since their caching and controllers are pretty good.

However I can corroborate your post when it comes to actual bargain-priced QLC drives. I have one I bought early on in QLC times as a tester. For everyday uses, it's an SSD. Works great.

But when you need to download and install a Windows update or any game update, it's like the bad old Windows XP days with a slow HDD. Performance and even basic UI responses to clicks elicit a fat nothing from the machine for seconds. Then it recovers to merely dog-slow and then usable. And rinse, repeat until the download and install portion is done and performance returns to normal.

Nobody should do this.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Somehow I doubt QP would put up with atrocious performance and Samsung's is at least a decent QLC drive since their caching and controllers are pretty good.

However I can corroborate your post when it comes to actual bargain-priced QLC drives. I have one I bought early on in QLC times as a tester. For everyday uses, it's an SSD. Works great.

But when you need to download and install a Windows update or any game update, it's like the bad old Windows XP days with a slow HDD. Performance and even basic UI responses to clicks elicit a fat nothing from the machine for seconds. Then it recovers to merely dog-slow and then usable. And rinse, repeat until the download and install portion is done and performance returns to normal.

Nobody should do this.

Even if a QLC drive is made well, once that cache runs out performance hits rock bottom. It's the nature of QLC NAND memory, TLC was also slower then MLC at this task and the rash of downgraded TLCs in tech news have demonstrated this behaviour.

QLC is jsut bad enough that day to day tasks can trigger it, as you said windows updates, game updates, any sort of big file transfer will obliterate performance.

QP I'm surprised at owning a QLC drive, when 8 TB TLC enterprise drives exist and fit his expensive tastes.

 

[kiwigraeme]

I think the point is - why would you buy a lessor drive for a few bucks - often on Amazon you see both types at 500Gb or 1Tb going for nearly same price - I just assume someone says - get a SSD to mum or grand dad - hey this ones $5 cheaper.
We all make these decisions - fly Delta ( don't even leave airport ) for $100 , fly CAAC ( chinese airlines always crash ) for $90 or fly emirates for $120.

I would pay $2000 for a 1Pb drive ASAP that was write only - and super reliable ( well I think most of us would )

Chinese airlines are now more reliable - I did fly an old Aeroflot jet back in the day - I'm still here

buses in some countries in South America in the eighties - Rapido ( super slow ) Super rapido ( slow ) Super rapido expresso ( normal - except roads slow anyway )

 

[Rdmetz]

If you dont understand why users knock QLC, I guess you just have ignored everything they've said? QLC has noticeably lower endurance, horrific performance when over 75% full, attrocious HDD level performance when writing larger files, and it's not noticeably cheaper then TLC SSDs.

QLC drives are "fast" to the human senses in the same way a base model crossover is "fast" and "sporty" to your average user, whom could barely tell a yugo from a ferrari if it wern't for the badge.

With a speed limit of 75mph and hazardous conditions is there really a difference between them if all that matters is you get there in a reasonable time frame and safely under those conditions?

I like fast too but I don't need to drive my 1300GSXR Hayabusa everywhere... I'm fine with the 4 banger sedan I drive most days and it's just as fast as getting me to work as the bike.

 

[Rdmetz]

Even if a QLC drive is made well, once that cache runs out performance hits rock bottom. It's the nature of QLC NAND memory, TLC was also slower then MLC at this task and the rash of downgraded TLCs in tech news have demonstrated this behaviour.

QLC is jsut bad enough that day to day tasks can trigger it, as you said windows updates, game updates, any sort of big file transfer will obliterate performance.

QP I'm surprised at owning a QLC drive, when 8 TB TLC enterprise drives exist and fit his expensive tastes.

I have a 3090 and a 3080 ti I don't mine with either and have one system with a complete custom water loop and 8x120mm rads I have a 10900k thats liquid metal cooled and running at 5.3ghz all core in one system and the other a 5800x

I also have 8tb of ssd in one system 7tb in the other along with 54tb of hdd backup

With all that said my storage is just a nvme in each with a couple 1 or 2 tb sata ssds accompanying them for files more important than archival and media (they go on the hdd's)

It's plenty of space and speed for any thing I'm needing and as long as you keep your o/s and associated files on the fastest drives you never really notice any difference.

Yes I'm fully aware there is more speed to be had in benchmarks but my need for "ultimate" only extends to the point I can notice it in my fps.

Loading is so fast now that it's just not worth it to spend extravagantly in this area.

I'd much rather have a 4-8tb QLC and a much better gpu than spend for the 4-8tb enterprise TLC

Heck at this point I'm not even interested in a drive over 2tb until the costs to go above it equal a savings not an additional expense (on a per gb sense).

 

[Lew Zealand]

Heck at this point I'm not even interested in a drive over 2tb until the costs to go above it equal a savings not an additional expense (on a per gb sense).

Everyone's got their different price point but the 4TB TLC SATA SSDs from WD and Crucial (here) are in the $360-380 range, which is pretty linear from their 2TB cousins. Maybe not savings yet, but very close.

 

[Revolution 11]

Everyone's got their different price point but the 4TB TLC SATA SSDs from WD and Crucial (here) are in the $360-380 range, which is pretty linear from their 2TB cousins. Maybe not savings yet, but very close.

There should be more savings with larger drives as the non-NAND components make up less and less of the costs. But I bet that the sweet spot for consumers is still around 1 TB. Not because consumers can't use 2 TB drives but because the price is below $100.

 

[Tams80]

I'll chime in with another 'at least it's TLC'.

I still use a Crucial MLC drive though. SLC was always going to be too expensive for most, but I do wish MLC (should it be DLC, lol) had stayed around. I'm prepared to pay the premium for better performance and durability.

 

[rrwards]

I'd hoped we'd be further along with SSD capacity by now.
I expected 10TB and 20TB SSD by now.

4TB models are great - especially at under $400 - and this one looks good.

10 and 20TB (and larger) SSDs already exist man. Hell Samsung had a 30TB SSD release almost 3 years ago. Exadrive makes a 100TB SSD now.