Winner
Samsung 840 Pro
SSDBoss recommends the Samsung 840 Pro based on its read performance, write performance, real world benchmarks and benchmarks.
See full details | Samsung 840 Pro vs Crucial M500 |
by Legit Reviews (Jan, 2013)For the Samsung 840 Pro 512GB drive, the readout on CrystalDiskInfo 5.2.0 shows that both NCQ and S.M.A.R.T. are enabled, as well as TRIM and the interface is confirmed at SATA III (6Gbps).
by Tech Radar (Oct, 2013)Well OK, it still has an eye-watering price tag, but given how expensive solid state drives were even a year ago, it's an impressively low price point.
read performance | |
How quickly data is read from the drive | |
840 Pro 6.6 Crucial M500 5.9 | |
4K Random Read, 4K Random Read Access Time and 512K Sequential Read |
write performance | |
How quickly data is written to the drive | |
840 Pro 7.0 Crucial M500 6.4 | |
4K Random Write, 4K Random Write Access Time and 512K Sequential Write |
real world benchmarks | |
How well the drive performs common tasks | |
840 Pro 8.1 Crucial M500 7.8 | |
Windows 7 Boot-up Time, Photoshop Lens Filter and AS SSD ISO Copy |
Benchmarks | |
How well the drive performs on common benchmarks | |
840 Pro 7.8 Crucial M500 7.7 | |
PCMark Vantage, AS SSD Score and Tom's Hardware Storage Bench |
SSDBoss Score | |
read performance, write performance, real world benchmarks and Benchmarks | |
840 Pro 7.2 Crucial M500 6.8 |
Winner |
| |||||||
Significantly faster 4k random read | 311.34 MB/s | vs | 126.46 MB/s | Around 2.5x faster 4k random read | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Significantly faster 4k random write | 130.58 MB/s | vs | 66.2 MB/s | More than 95% faster 4k random write | |||
Larger cache | 256 MB | vs | 24 MB | Around 10.8x larger cache | |||
Faster 512K sequential write | 499.3 MB/s | vs | 413.32 MB/s | More than 20% faster 512K sequential write | |||
Faster windows 7 boot-up time | 7.8 s | vs | 8.8 s | More than 10% faster windows 7 boot-up time | |||
Significantly lower 4k random read access time | 0.8 ms | vs | 1.98 ms | 2.5x lower 4k random read access time | |||
Faster tom's storage bench application | 733 pts | vs | 605 pts | More than 20% faster tom's storage bench application | |||
Significantly lower 4k random write access time | 1.91 ms | vs | 3.78 ms | Around 50% lower 4k random write access time | |||
Higher MTBF | 1,500,000 hours | vs | 1,200,000 hours | 25% higher MTBF | |||
Faster AS SSD ISO copy | 429.47 MB/s | vs | 306.5 MB/s | More than 40% faster AS SSD ISO copy | |||
Slightly lighter | 53 g | vs | 64 g | More than 15% lighter | |||
Slightly higher AS SSD score | 1,143 pts | vs | 1,011 pts | Around 15% higher AS SSD score | |||
Slightly faster photoshop lens filter | 56.1 s | vs | 57.4 s | Almost the same | |||
Slightly lower avg. power consumption | 2 Watts | vs | 2.13 Watts | More than 5% lower avg. power consumption | |||
| |||||||
Significantly higher capacity | 960 GB | vs | 512 GB | Around 90% higher capacity | |||
Significantly more capacity per dollar | 3.2 GB/$ | vs | 1.83 GB/$ | Around 75% more capacity per dollar |
840 Pro | vs | Crucial M500 | ||
![]() | 9.2 | 9.4 | Crucial M500 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() | 8.0 | 9.0 | Crucial M500 | |
Overall | 8.7 Out of 10 | 9.2 Out of 10 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$438 | ||
840 EVO vs 840 Pro | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$438 | ||
SSD 850 PRO vs 840 Pro | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$438 | ||
SSD 850 EVO vs 840 Pro | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$300 | ||
MX300 vs M500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$300 | ||
840 EVO vs M500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$80 | $300 | |
m4 vs M500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$215 | $300 | |
MX100 vs M500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$438 | ||
840 EVO vs 840 Pro | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$300 | ||
MX300 vs M500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
WD Blue PC SSD vs SSD 850 EVO | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$63 | $250 | |
SSD Plus vs Ultra II | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$63 | ||
SSDNow UV400 vs SSD Plus | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
MX500 vs MX300 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
WD Green PC SSD vs SSDNow UV400 | ||