SSDBoss Review Our evaluation of 840 Pro vs M500

read performance

How quickly data is read from the drive

4K Random Read, 4K Random Read Access Time and 512K Sequential Read

write performance

How quickly data is written to the drive

4K Random Write, 4K Random Write Access Time and 512K Sequential Write

real world benchmarks

How well the drive performs common tasks

Windows 7 Boot-up Time, Photoshop Lens Filter and AS SSD ISO Copy

Benchmarks

How well the drive performs on common benchmarks

PCMark Vantage, AS SSD Score and Tom's Hardware Storage Bench

SSDBoss Score

read performance, write performance, real world benchmarks and Benchmarks

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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Samsung 840 Pro

Reasons to consider the
Samsung 840 Pro

Report a correction
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
Slightly lighter 53 g vs 64 g More than 15% lighter
Faster AS SSD ISO copy 429.47 MB/s vs 306.5 MB/s More than 40% faster AS SSD ISO copy
Slightly higher AS SSD score 1,143 pts vs 1,011 pts Around 15% higher AS SSD score
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
Front view of Crucial M500

Reasons to consider the
Crucial M500

Report a correction
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

Benchmarks Real world tests of 840 Pro vs Crucial M500

4K Random Read

840 Pro
311.34 MB/s
Crucial M500
126.46 MB/s

4K Random Write

840 Pro
130.58 MB/s
Crucial M500
66.2 MB/s

Windows 7 Boot-up Time

840 Pro
7.8 s
Crucial M500
8.8 s

Avg. Power Consumption

840 Pro
2 Watts
Crucial M500
2.13 Watts

4K Random Read Access Time

840 Pro
1.91 ms
Crucial M500
3.78 ms

4K Random Write Access Time

840 Pro
0.8 ms
Crucial M500
1.98 ms

Reviews Word on the street

840 Pro  vs Crucial M500 

9.2
9.4
When looking at cost per GB, it also reaches a very good result, making the M500 a great all-around drive that'll be an excellent choice for any user who's looking for fast SSD storage without breaking the bank.
Crucial M500

8.0
9.0
Joining the NAND on one side of the board is its Marvell memory controller and a 512MB DDR3-1600 cache chip, while on the other side of the board there's a matching 512MB RAM chip to make up the total cache.
Crucial M500

Overall

8.7 Out of 10
9.2 Out of 10

Comments

comments powered by Disqus