0 Comments
| | Samsung 840 EVO vs Crucial M500 |
Released August, 2013
Samsung 840 EVO
- 1,000 GB
- 2.5" SATA III
- 1,000 MB
by Tech Radar (Jul, 2013)The performance of these EVO drives is actually pretty astounding.
VS
Released March, 2013
Crucial M500
- 960 GB
- 2.5" SATA III
- 24 MB
by Legit Reviews (Apr, 2013)Benchmark Results: Given that this is usually the benchmark that yields peak performance, it's always nice to see a drive far exceed the given specifications which is what we see here from the M500.
SSDBoss Review Our evaluation of 840 EVO vs M500
read performance | |
How quickly data is read from the drive | |
| 840 EVO 9.5 Crucial M500 7.7 | |
| 4K Random Read, 4K Random Read Access Time and 512K Sequential Read | |
write performance | |
How quickly data is written to the drive | |
| 840 EVO 9.1 Crucial M500 8.0 | |
| 4K Random Write, 4K Random Write Access Time and 512K Sequential Write | |
real world benchmarks | |
How well the drive performs common tasks | |
| 840 EVO 9.6 Crucial M500 9.2 | |
| Windows 7 Boot-up Time, Photoshop Lens Filter and AS SSD ISO Copy | |
Benchmarks | |
How well the drive performs on common benchmarks | |
| 840 EVO 8.4 Crucial M500 8.0 | |
| PCMark Vantage and AS SSD Score | |
No winner declared
Too close to call
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much faster 4k random read | 318.8 MB/s | vs | 126.46 MB/s | More than 2.5x faster 4k random read | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much larger cache | 1,000 MB | vs | 24 MB | Around 41.8x larger cache | |||
| Faster 4k random write | 106.65 MB/s | vs | 66.2 MB/s | More than 60% faster 4k random write | |||
| Faster 512K sequential write | 510.27 MB/s | vs | 413.32 MB/s | Around 25% faster 512K sequential write | |||
| Higher AS SSD score | 1,198 pts | vs | 1,011 pts | Around 20% higher AS SSD score | |||
| Significantly faster AS SSD ISO copy | 441.16 MB/s | vs | 306.5 MB/s | Around 45% faster AS SSD ISO copy | |||
| Slightly faster 512K sequential read | 527.52 MB/s | vs | 512.18 MB/s | Around 5% faster 512K sequential read | |||
| Lower 4k random read access time | 0.78 ms | vs | 1.98 ms | 2.5x lower 4k random read access time | |||
| Lower 4k random write access time | 2.34 ms | vs | 3.78 ms | Around 40% lower 4k random write access time | |||
| Slightly lighter | 53 g | vs | 64 g | More than 15% lighter | |||
| Higher MTBF | 1,500,000 hours | vs | 1,200,000 hours | 25% higher MTBF | |||
| Slightly faster photoshop lens filter | 56.6 s | vs | 57.4 s | Almost the same | |||
| |||||||
| Slightly faster windows 7 boot-up time | 8.8 s | vs | 9.3 s | More than 5% faster windows 7 boot-up time | |||
| Slightly lower avg. power consumption | 2.13 Watts | vs | 2.29 Watts | More than 5% lower avg. power consumption | |||
Benchmarks Real world tests of 840 EVO vs Crucial M500
4K Random Read
840 EVO
318.8 MB/s
Crucial M500
126.46 MB/s
840 EVO | by Anand-Lal-Shimpi (Jul, 2013)TurboWrite does a good job of blurring the lines between MLC and TLC performance, while Samsung's RAPID DRAM cache offers adventurous users a way of getting a taste of high-end PCIe SSD performance out of an affordable TLC SATA drive.
4K Random Write
840 EVO
106.65 MB/s
Crucial M500
66.2 MB/s
840 EVO | by Anand-Lal-Shimpi (Jul, 2013)The performance story is really good (particularly with the larger capacities), performance consistency out of the box is ok (and gets better if you can leave more free space on the drive) and you've got Samsung's firmware expertise supporting you along the way as well.
Windows 7 Boot-up Time
840 EVO
9.3 s
Crucial M500
8.8 s
840 EVO | by Tech Radar (Jul, 2013)Crucial's 960GB M500 may just have the edge in terms of pricing, offering 'terabyte-class' drives for less than this hefty EVO SSD, but when it comes to performance Samsung has got it in spades.
Avg. Power Consumption
840 EVO
2.29 Watts
Crucial M500
2.13 Watts
840 EVO | by Tech Radar (Jul, 2013)The PCIe interface offers dramatically higher sequential performance, but does nothing for the random speeds - and this is arguably what really matters in terms of real-world SSD usage.
4K Random Read Access Time
840 EVO
2.34 ms
Crucial M500
3.78 ms
840 EVO | by Tech Radar (Jul, 2013)The 120GB and 250GB drives on the other hand have only 3GB, which will get filled up a lot quicker.
4K Random Write Access Time
840 EVO
0.78 ms
Crucial M500
1.98 ms
840 EVO | by Tech Radar (Jul, 2013)The reason that placing still works though is because the EVO is using a new write acceleration algorithm, called TurboWrite, to achieve some of its beefier performance scores.
Reviews Word on the street
| 840 EVO | vs | Crucial M500 | ||
| 9.0 | 9.0 | 840 EVO | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
| VS | |
| $420 | $280 | |
| 840 EVO vs 840 Pro | ||
| VS | |
| $420 | $210 | |
| 840 EVO vs MX100 | ||
| VS | |
| $420 | $49 | |
| 840 EVO vs SSDNow V300 | ||
| VS | |
| $420 | $130 | |
| 840 EVO vs 530 | ||
| VS | |
| $420 | ||
| 840 EVO vs M550 | ||
| VS | |
| $420 | ||
| 840 EVO vs SSD 850 PRO | ||
| VS | |
| $410 | $210 | |
| M500 vs MX100 | ||
Popular Comparisons
| VS | |
| $280 | $420 | |
| 840 Pro vs 840 EVO | ||
| VS | |
| $420 | $210 | |
| 840 EVO vs MX100 | ||
| VS | |
| $210 | ||
| M550 vs MX100 | ||
| VS | |
| $410 | $210 | |
| M500 vs MX100 | ||
| VS | |
| $49 | $420 | |
| SSDNow V300 vs 840 EVO | ||
| VS | |
| $115 | $130 | |
| 520 vs 530 | ||
| VS | |
| $420 | $130 | |
| 840 EVO vs 530 | ||
Read more
Comments
Showing 3 comments.
Cynthia (11:01 AM, July 19, 2014)
Jett Angeles (11:35 AM, June 20, 2014)
ARCUS1200 (07:56 PM, April 19, 2014)



