Unfortunately this deal has expired. Get notified of deals like this in the future.
Hot Deal
Crucial BX500 480GB 3D NAND SATA 6.35 cm (2.5-inch) SSD

Crucial BX500 480GB 3D NAND SATA 6.35 cm (2.5-inch) SSD

923°
2321
63% OFF 6200.0
Pro Deal Legend
Censuresh
Moderator
https://www.amazon.in/gp/product/B07G3...Q/

.

List Price

₹2,690

10% Instant Discount Up To Inr 250 On Rupay Debit Cards. . ( - ₹250 )

₹2,440

10% Instant Discount Up To Inr 500 On Rupay Credit Cards. . ( - ₹269 )

₹2,421

Get 15% Back. Up To ₹100 - ( - ₹100 )

₹2,321


.

Expired
Top Comments
Critic Critic
Link Copied
Expand
satkan19 wrote:
It is basically the total write quantity that manufacturer assures before the ssd fails with the hardware. It is measured like TeraBytes of data Written to any ssd in its lifetime of use.
More accurately, it is the total amt of data written to a ssd before its warranty is void kind of like those Car warranties with 5 years or 10000KM whichever is earlier. Yes chances of ssd failure increases much more after TBW limit is crossed(which btw also isn't possible in a typical usage case scenario unless doing heavy torrent downloading of 30-40GB+ daily etc like tasks) but it is still not guaranteed that ssd will fail.
@snipersharma 
Deal Subedar Deal Subedar
Link Copied
Looking to upgrade my 120gb Samsung 750 to 500gb/1tb but thanks to @getready, now take care to Endurance/TBW therefore look for offer on samsung only. By the way have always preffered & brought samsung ssd without knowing TBW factor.
42 Comments  |  
13 Dimers
  • Sort By
Deal Subedar Deal Subedar
Link Copied
Reward not available to all
Deal Cadet Deal Cadet
Link Copied
Nice
Deal Subedar Deal Subedar
Link Copied
Looking to upgrade my 120gb Samsung 750 to 500gb/1tb but thanks to @getready, now take care to Endurance/TBW therefore look for offer on samsung only. By the way have always preffered & brought samsung ssd without knowing TBW factor.
Deal Subedar Deal Subedar
Link Copied
chawla9052 wrote:
Looking to upgrade my 120gb Samsung 750 to 500gb/1tb but thanks to @getready, now take care to Endurance/TBW therefore look for offer on samsung only. By the way have always preffered & brought samsung ssd without knowing TBW factor.
Is it a decent purchase or not for someone looking to upgrade from hdd?
Deal Newbie Deal Newbie
Link Copied
not worth
Deal Subedar Deal Subedar
Link Copied
Expand
d3xt3r wrote:
Is it a decent purchase or not for someone looking to upgrade from hdd?
Can be purchased if upgrading from hdd with limited budget, will make a lot of difference in booting or app working.
Deal Subedar Deal Subedar
Link Copied
Expand
d3xt3r wrote:
Is it a decent purchase or not for someone looking to upgrade from hdd?

Any SSD will be a huge upgrade from HDD for main drive. 

Deal Cadet Deal Cadet
Link Copied
chawla9052 wrote:
Looking to upgrade my 120gb Samsung 750 to 500gb/1tb but thanks to @getready, now take care to Endurance/TBW therefore look for offer on samsung only. By the way have always preffered & brought samsung ssd without knowing TBW factor.

Can you please elaborate on TBW factor?

Benevolent Benevolent
Link Copied
chawla9052 wrote:
Looking to upgrade my 120gb Samsung 750 to 500gb/1tb but thanks to @getready, now take care to Endurance/TBW therefore look for offer on samsung only. By the way have always preffered & brought samsung ssd without knowing TBW factor.
please share for us also in simple language + @getready
Blaze Blaze
Link Copied
Expand
snipersharma wrote:

Can you please elaborate on TBW factor?

It is basically the total write quantity that manufacturer assures before the ssd fails with the hardware. It is measured like TeraBytes of data Written to any ssd in its lifetime of use.
Critic Critic
Link Copied
Expand
satkan19 wrote:
It is basically the total write quantity that manufacturer assures before the ssd fails with the hardware. It is measured like TeraBytes of data Written to any ssd in its lifetime of use.
More accurately, it is the total amt of data written to a ssd before its warranty is void kind of like those Car warranties with 5 years or 10000KM whichever is earlier. Yes chances of ssd failure increases much more after TBW limit is crossed(which btw also isn't possible in a typical usage case scenario unless doing heavy torrent downloading of 30-40GB+ daily etc like tasks) but it is still not guaranteed that ssd will fail.
@snipersharma 
Mobile Guru Mobile Guru
Link Copied
Expand
kukdookoo wrote:
please share for us also in simple language + @getready

Check 1, 2, 3. This isn't a big deal for SSDs like 970 Evo plus, 980 with very high endurance rating (+ limited use) but important for drives like BX500 (especially smaller capacity ones like BX500 | Every write degrades the ssd quality by a minute margin*). 

TBW rating for BX500 SATA SSD(240GB - 80TB, 480GB - 120TB, 1TB - 360TB, 2TB - 720TB) and for MX500 (250GB - 100TB, 500GB - 180TB, 1TB - 360TB, 2TB - 700TB).

Basically it (TBW rating via brand test findings) helps to differentiate which drives are better (durability*). So, if you're a heavy user and need a reliable drive for a longer period of time.. it is best to go with MX500 (500GB @ ~3.7k effective), already better it being a DRAM drive + more reasons to prefer it via Endurance rating

Benevolent Benevolent
Link Copied
Expand
getready wrote:

Check 1, 2, 3. This isn't a big deal for SSDs like 970 Evo plus, 980 with very high endurance rating (+ limited use) but important for drives like BX500 (especially smaller capacity ones like BX500 | Every write degrades the ssd quality by a minute margin*). 

TBW rating for BX500 SATA SSD(240GB - 80TB, 480GB - 120TB, 1TB - 360TB, 2TB - 720TB) and for MX500 (250GB - 100TB, 500GB - 180TB, 1TB - 360TB, 2TB - 700TB).

Basically it (TBW rating via brand test findings) helps to differentiate which drives are better (durability*). So, if you're a heavy user and need a reliable drive for a longer period of time.. it is best to go with MX500 (500GB @ ~3.7k effective), already better it being a DRAM drive + more reasons to prefer it via Endurance rating

tbw=total host writes in crystal disk info?


in normal usage i have seen over 1000gb total host write in a month, normal usage mean backup of data is there too in this drive. so this means drive will run for 18 months only?


total host reads is only for m.2 nvme ssd? + @guest_999 @G-Gowda

Critic Critic
Link Copied
Expand
kukdookoo wrote:

tbw=total host writes in crystal disk info?


in normal usage i have seen over 1000gb total host write in a month, normal usage mean backup of data is there too in this drive. so this means drive will run for 18 months only?


total host reads is only for m.2 nvme ssd? + @guest_999 @G-Gowda

Basically yes.


1000GB is approx 1TB in 1 month. Cheapest kingston & WD 120gb ssd have TBW rating of 30TB while 240GB drives usually have around 80TB. Also 1TB data written on a ssd in one month is nowhere near to "normal usage", that data backup method you are following must be quite bad & inefficient.

Total host read is just another parameter basically opposite to total host writes & is available for all ssd but not all ssd may show it in crystaldiskinfo. This parameter is also irrelevant to ssd health unlike data written to ssd as indicated by total host writes.

Mobile Guru Mobile Guru
Link Copied
Expand
kukdookoo wrote:

tbw=total host writes in crystal disk info?


in normal usage i have seen over 1000gb total host write in a month, normal usage mean backup of data is there too in this drive. so this means drive will run for 18 months only?


total host reads is only for m.2 nvme ssd? + @guest_999 @G-Gowda

tbw=total host writes in crystal disk info?

Yes, but it is in hex (via CystalDiskInfo). You can check brand specific software like Samsung magician for total data written

in normal usage i have seen over 1000gb total host write in a month, normal usage mean backup of data is there too in this drive. so this means drive will run for 18 months only?

Everything (data written*) is included. The drive might run much longer than 18 months (Assuming it is rated at 18TBW) but this is the brand promise (Warranty / Drive working fine without any errors). For someone who is into just browsing and basic tasks, even this drive might last years but if you're someone who uses downloads a lot (Download managers .. get the files in parts and append them once the download is done. So, essentially a 50GB file resulted in 100GB data writes. The same is not the case for peer 2 peer downloads) or into pro-video editing via Premiere pro / resolve then a 80 TBW drive feels inadequate (Proxy/Optimized files are usually 5/10x the source file)

total host reads is only for m.2 nvme ssd?

Applies to any drive (HDD/SDD). Like i said before, it is the data writes that causes physical damage to the drive not the reads

Critic Critic
Link Copied
Expand
getready wrote:
even this drive might last years but if you're someone who uses downloads a lot (Download managers .. get the files in parts and append them once the download is done. So, essentially a 50GB file resulted in 100GB data writes. The same is not the case for peer 2 peer downloads) or into pro-video editing via Premiere pro / resolve then a 80 TBW drive feels inadequate (Proxy/Optimized files are usually 5/10x the source file)

total host reads is only for m.2 nvme ssd?

Applies to any drive (HDD/SDD). Like i said before, it is the data writes that causes physical damage to the drive not the reads

That is incorrect, p2p downloads in general refer to torrents which are even worse than download managers when it comes to write amplification on ssd because torrent usually downloads in chunks of few kb blocks in non-sequential random manner unlike http/ftp downloads(even if they are using multi-segment download technique because each segment itself downloads in sequential order only) & multi file torrents have even worse write amplification because a chunk of data block may contain more than 1 file's data resulting in multiple moving & rearranging operations.

https://github.com/qbittorrent/qBittorrent/issu...

Mobile Guru Mobile Guru
Link Copied
Expand
guest_999 wrote:
That is incorrect, p2p downloads in general refer to torrents which are even worse than download managers when it comes to write amplification on ssd because torrent usually downloads in chunks of few kb blocks in non-sequential random manner unlike http/ftp downloads(even if they are using multi-segment download technique because each segment itself downloads in sequential order only) & multi file torrents have even worse write amplification because a chunk of data block may contain more than 1 file's data resulting in multiple moving & rearranging operations.

https://github.com/qbittorrent/qBittorrent/issu...

What is incorrect lol? P2P doesn't mean just torrents or qBittorrent. Now i should quote couple of web torrent clients and try to prove that torrents are downloaded in sequential manner? 😄

hmm.. It seems you're new to torrenting. qBit is just one of clients used for torrent downloads/uploads (there are many others) and these chunks/pieces/blocks (whatever you call them) can be downloaded randomly or sequentially via qBit too (the protocol doesn't mandate anything).. its just that many of these clients opt for random downloads as a default for other obvious reasons (Unrelated to drive health*). If you're seeing "Stream" options for torrents in some client like utorrent then understand they're also following sequential downloads. So, if you're bothered about SSD wear with qBit, just enable "Download in sequential order" via settings / for any particular torrent and you're good to go, much better than the download managers that follow a specific download pattern as mentioned in my previous post. Personally i wouldn't recommend SSDs for serious torrenting, especially these cheaper BX500s (HDDs are much better options)

https://cdn0.desidime.com/attachments/photos/812897/medium/PhElCLY.jpg?1664931772

+ Change the disk cache settings in qBit (If you can't see this, get 4.3.9 client or the latest one based on libtorrent 2.0.x 1.2.x) and set it according to your system RAM (Larger the better, this RAM space should get used up only when the client is actively downloading or uploading something*) + make sure "Coalesce reads & writes" is also enabled (when the downloaded pieces get moved from RAM to Disk, the memory mapping is done). That being said, this thread isn't about P2P or qBit.. If you got further doubts/concerns you can ping me or create a D&D thread

Deal Subedar Deal Subedar
Link Copied
Expand
kukdookoo wrote:

tbw=total host writes in crystal disk info?


in normal usage i have seen over 1000gb total host write in a month, normal usage mean backup of data is there too in this drive. so this means drive will run for 18 months only?


total host reads is only for m.2 nvme ssd? + @guest_999 @G-Gowda

1TB per month is not normal usage for light users. Total host writes tells you the amount of data written to the SSD. SSDs amplify data written unlike HDDs. Some like the MacBook M1 are worse amplifying the data by 5 - 10 times sometimes immediately. It's because of software issues. 

But 1TB per month is still more than 3 years for something like a 120GB WD Green SSD which has a 40TB warranty and no DRAM. So it shouldn't matter much. This 480GB drive has 120TB warranty for 3 years. At that estimate, it should be good enough for 10 years for you. But SSDs usually die because of reasons other than total TBW and data recovery is costly and almost impossible many times unlike HDDs. So always backup your data. 

Also Reads don't matter.

Benevolent Benevolent
Link Copied
Expand
guest_999 wrote:

Basically yes.


1000GB is approx 1TB in 1 month. Cheapest kingston & WD 120gb ssd have TBW rating of 30TB while 240GB drives usually have around 80TB. Also 1TB data written on a ssd in one month is nowhere near to "normal usage", that data backup method you are following must be quite bad & inefficient.

Total host read is just another parameter basically opposite to total host writes & is available for all ssd but not all ssd may show it in crystaldiskinfo. This parameter is also irrelevant to ssd health unlike data written to ssd as indicated by total host writes.

that data backup method you are following must be quite bad & inefficient.

Please explain?take backup from different machines in an external drive and then copy paste in ssd once a month.how to make it good and efficient?
Benevolent Benevolent
Link Copied
Expand
G-Gowda wrote:

1TB per month is not normal usage for light users. Total host writes tells you the amount of data written to the SSD. SSDs amplify data written unlike HDDs. Some like the MacBook M1 are worse amplifying the data by 5 - 10 times sometimes immediately. It's because of software issues. 

But 1TB per month is still more than 3 years for something like a 120GB WD Green SSD which has a 40TB warranty and no DRAM. So it shouldn't matter much. This 480GB drive has 120TB warranty for 3 years. At that estimate, it should be good enough for 10 years for you. But SSDs usually die because of reasons other than total TBW and data recovery is costly and almost impossible many times unlike HDDs. So always backup your data. 

Also Reads don't matter.

Why do they amplify it? here is what is fine,take backup from different machines in an external drive and then copy paste in ssd once a month.how to make it good and efficient?
Benevolent Benevolent
Link Copied
Expand
getready wrote:
tbw=total host writes in crystal disk info?

Yes, but it is in hex (via CystalDiskInfo). You can check brand specific software like Samsung magician for total data written

in normal usage i have seen over 1000gb total host write in a month, normal usage mean backup of data is there too in this drive. so this means drive will run for 18 months only?

Everything (data written*) is included. The drive might run much longer than 18 months (Assuming it is rated at 18TBW) but this is the brand promise (Warranty / Drive working fine without any errors). For someone who is into just browsing and basic tasks, even this drive might last years but if you're someone who uses downloads a lot (Download managers .. get the files in parts and append them once the download is done. So, essentially a 50GB file resulted in 100GB data writes. The same is not the case for peer 2 peer downloads) or into pro-video editing via Premiere pro / resolve then a 80 TBW drive feels inadequate (Proxy/Optimized files are usually 5/10x the source file)

total host reads is only for m.2 nvme ssd?

Applies to any drive (HDD/SDD). Like i said before, it is the data writes that causes physical damage to the drive not the reads

here is what is fine,take backup from different machines in an external drive and then copy paste in ssd once a month.how to make it good and efficient?
Benevolent Benevolent
Link Copied
Expand
guest_999 wrote:
That is incorrect, p2p downloads in general refer to torrents which are even worse than download managers when it comes to write amplification on ssd because torrent usually downloads in chunks of few kb blocks in non-sequential random manner unlike http/ftp downloads(even if they are using multi-segment download technique because each segment itself downloads in sequential order only) & multi file torrents have even worse write amplification because a chunk of data block may contain more than 1 file's data resulting in multiple moving & rearranging operations.

https://github.com/qbittorrent/qBittorrent/issu...

Matlab don't use torrents in any ssd? :sad: 
Benevolent Benevolent
Link Copied
Expand
getready wrote:

What is incorrect lol? P2P doesn't mean just torrents or qBittorrent. Now i should quote couple of web torrent clients and try to prove that torrents are downloaded in sequential manner? 😄

hmm.. It seems you're new to torrenting. qBit is just one of clients used for torrent downloads/uploads (there are many others) and these chunks/pieces/blocks (whatever you call them) can be downloaded randomly or sequentially via qBit too (the protocol doesn't mandate anything).. its just that many of these clients opt for random downloads as a default for other obvious reasons (Unrelated to drive health*). If you're seeing "Stream" options for torrents in some client like utorrent then understand they're also following sequential downloads. So, if you're bothered about SSD wear with qBit, just enable "Download in sequential order" via settings / for any particular torrent and you're good to go, much better than the download managers that follow a specific download pattern as mentioned in my previous post. Personally i wouldn't recommend SSDs for serious torrenting, especially these cheaper BX500s (HDDs are much better options)

https://cdn0.desidime.com/attachments/photos/812897/original/PhElCLY.jpg?1664931772

+ Change the disk cache settings in qBit (If you can't see this, get 4.3.9 client or the latest one based on libtorrent 2.0.x 1.2.x) and set it according to your system RAM (Larger the better, this RAM space should get used up only when the client is actively downloading or uploading something*) + make sure "Coalesce reads & writes" is also enabled (when the downloaded pieces get moved from RAM to Disk, the memory mapping is done). That being said, this thread isn't about P2P or qBit.. If you got further doubts/concerns you can ping me or create a D&D thread

Where is that setting in utorrent? After changing setting safe to use torrents in ssd?
Mobile Guru Mobile Guru
Link Copied
Expand
kukdookoo wrote:
here is what is fine,take backup from different machines in an external drive and then copy paste in ssd once a month.how to make it good and efficient?
Which backup you're talking about? What's need to copy-paste these backups onto SSDs?
Deal Subedar Deal Subedar
Link Copied
Expand
kukdookoo wrote:
Why do they amplify it? here is what is fine,take backup from different machines in an external drive and then copy paste in ssd once a month.how to make it good and efficient?

Do whatever you want. I just told you it doesn't matter. Use it normally and don't copy paste anything to save the SSD. It will do its job. It has 120TB warranty. 

Mobile Guru Mobile Guru
Link Copied
Expand
kukdookoo wrote:
Where is that setting in utorrent? After changing setting safe to use torrents in ssd?

Even if it is better than download managers (w/ double writes), why torrenting on SSDs? The reason why i mentioned "Download managers" is we tend to install programs on OS Drive (SSD*) for faster load times (Say laptop got two storage slots*) and by default the temp location of downloads is set to the installation drive. So, even if people opt for save location from a different drive (Say HDD), they unknowingly end up creating unnecessary writes on SSD (Especially if the download size is huge*). Couple more minutes of waiting (appending downloaded parts into one) should be okay (No point in using a slower HDD for proxy/optimized files creation though). Anyways download the brand specific software and monitor the monthly writes and set the SSD usage accordingly 

For OS/System drive - SSD
Media Drive - HDD

and avoid utorrent (its full of ads/malware + there were reports excess resource consumption via mining). Opt for open-source clients like qBit, Deluge, Transmission (Some got limited functionality*).. check DM

Critic Critic
Link Copied
Expand
getready wrote:

What is incorrect lol? P2P doesn't mean just torrents or qBittorrent. Now i should quote couple of web torrent clients and try to prove that torrents are downloaded in sequential manner? 😄

hmm.. It seems you're new to torrenting. qBit is just one of clients used for torrent downloads/uploads (there are many others) and these chunks/pieces/blocks (whatever you call them) can be downloaded randomly or sequentially via qBit too (the protocol doesn't mandate anything).. its just that many of these clients opt for random downloads as a default for other obvious reasons (Unrelated to drive health*). If you're seeing "Stream" options for torrents in some client like utorrent then understand they're also following sequential downloads. So, if you're bothered about SSD wear with qBit, just enable "Download in sequential order" via settings / for any particular torrent and you're good to go, much better than the download managers that follow a specific download pattern as mentioned in my previous post. Personally i wouldn't recommend SSDs for serious torrenting, especially these cheaper BX500s (HDDs are much better options)

https://cdn0.desidime.com/attachments/photos/812897/medium/PhElCLY.jpg?1664931772

+ Change the disk cache settings in qBit (If you can't see this, get 4.3.9 client or the latest one based on libtorrent 2.0.x 1.2.x) and set it according to your system RAM (Larger the better, this RAM space should get used up only when the client is actively downloading or uploading something*) + make sure "Coalesce reads & writes" is also enabled (when the downloaded pieces get moved from RAM to Disk, the memory mapping is done). That being said, this thread isn't about P2P or qBit.. If you got further doubts/concerns you can ping me or create a D&D thread

I am using torrents since 2006 & it seems you are not aware about "pvt trackers rules" which recommend against using such "sequential torrent downloading" & have a list of selected allowed torrent clients which excludes any web torrent client. Torrent protocol fundamentally was designed to download in random order only. For example, a 100mb file will have 6400 blocks of 16kb each (one of the most commonly used block size while creating torrent) so peer A downloading the torrent will get block no. 3200 from peer B while block no. 2100 from peer C & upload the block no. 2100 to peer D as requested. These blocks need to be rearranged in order to reconstitute the file being downloaded & this is where write amplification comes into play on ssd because of how ssd works (TRIM & garbage collection). Ram cache only helps in minimizing writes to disk & is quite beneficial for hdd as hdd usually have very low random 4k write speeds but it does not help with write amplification on ssd as much because it doesn't matter whether the block no. 2100 & 3200 gets written to ssd one at a time or in one go via ram cache the rearranging of data still happens. What you are talking about is ways to download block no.1,2,3..6400 all in a sequence which you can clearly see is in contradiction with fundamentals of torrent protocol(redundancy & decentralization) & the reason why this is frowned upon by pvt trackers & torrent protocol enthusiasts.
replyuser
Click here to reply
Reply