Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
Why don't you like Crucial?
The MX300 750GB is like 20% faster for $35 less.
|
I've owned the original Sandforce and MX100 and both ended up with strange lag/hanging/BSOD during shut down issues, especially in instances of larger file writes (which weren't even that large at times. A few hundred GB of photos etc.). The MX100 stopped getting wonky after I upgraded from Win 7 to 10, but I spent many hours trying to fix that issue to no avail. Windows 10 randomly just fixed it for me after using it for like 2-3 years. I was fine with it at the time because it never affected the work (just basic surfing etc. /was a toy) but the fact I could never find the registry/software fix for it irked me.
The MX300 had some issues in the review I read, but supposedly it was "mostly resolved" with a firmware update. I never read the review in complete depth because just that mention of a weird issue reminded me of the headache from the previous ones I didn't want to repeat. The ones I own were never resolved with firmware updates, so I am biased in believing they are cheap for performance but flakey for reliability. It also sits at a price point I'd rather pony up and get a Samsung for both performance AND reliability. That being said, I probably got unlucky and ended up with 3 lemons (what are the odds) because the MX100 reviews were always favorable.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...sd,4544-3.html (Read cons section. I found it super weird they didn't discuss the hang time issue in depth in the review... unless I scanned it too fast)
The MX300 is new 3D NAND technology. I'd rather wait a few generations/pony up for Samsung SSD than be a hardware beta tester/sit down and find a fix for the Crucial. I make enough now that it's more worth it to pay $50 more than have to spend a few hours figuring out something that IMO should "just work out of the box" now.
Don't let me stop you from trying the Crucial out. Like I said, I'm biased against them.
