Budget 500GB SATA SSD - Crucial MX500 or..?

Hi all,

I'm looking at upgrading my parents' PC from a 1TB WD Black to a ~500GB SSD to give it a bit of a boost (whilst it boots Linux in about 25s, it takes about 30s to log in, and loading Chromium/Firefox takes about 10s - from the sounds it's making, it's doing lots of small file reads). I'm looking for a reliable, budget 2.5" SATA drive, around 500GB.

The cheapest option from the "normal" manufacturers are the Crucial MX500 500GB and MX300 525GB (both £120).

Other options would be the SanDisk Ultra 3D 500GB (£130), Samsung 850 EVO 500GB (£135), and Western Digital Blue 3D 500GB (£145).

Before I go and get the MX500, should I be looking at any of the others? I'm guessing they largely perform in a similar manner when being used for normal home-office use (i.e. web, e-mail, and word processing), so simply having an SSD is the biggest benefit, and I should plump for the cheapest "decent" one?

Thanks! :)
 

mazboy

Commendable
Dec 28, 2017
823
0
1,660
The Crucial is a good SSD, the Samsung is better. I'd be more worried about the way your computer is acting, more than how fast the HDD is. What hardware are you running, and what flavor of Linux?

I've run Linux Mint since forever, on hardware as slow as Celerons (and never, ever felt the need for SSDs or more than 4GB of RAM), and never had speed problems loading/using software. While it's rare for Linux to get virus'd, it does happen. Time for a reinstall?
 

I've got an 850 EVO in my work laptop, and it's a nice drive ... just wondering if the Samsung is worth an extra £15 ...


It's running Linux Mint 17.3 (soon to be 18.3 via reinstall) on an i3-4330 with 8GB of 1600MHz DDR3. It's only really the first login after boot which has been slow - subsequent logins are much faster (<5s). Most applications (e.g. Libre Office) load very quickly, but Firefox and Chromium have always been slow loaders (although I think they've got a bit slower - probably due to their caches)