[SOLVED] My old crucial SSD is dying?

[Jeff_120]

Hello
My ''old'' Crucial 240gb SSD drive where my Windows 10 is installed is now at 85% health as you can see in the screenshot, but what is more concerning is that at each crystaldiskmark speed test I get very different result for Sequential , it can be 50mb/s or 170mb/s or 350mb/s for write speed
So is that a sign my drive is starting to go downhill and it's better to prepare a new SSD and clone Windows on it?

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Speed will depends on a lot. Windows can affect speed.
Given the health is supposedly still good, its probably fine.

SSDs really dont tend to warn you before they die anyhow.

 

[Maxxify]

At least in terms of writes, it's fine. Total Host Sector Writes when converted to decimal and multiplied by sector size (512B) comes out to ~30TB which is how much you have written. That's really not that much. Average block erase count is 462, which is effectively P/E - this flash is good for several times that at least (and probably more like ten times). Roughly 3000 P/E though as rated, 462/3000 = 15%, 100 - 15 = 85% health.

 

[Jeff_120]

At least in terms of writes, it's fine. Total Host Sector Writes when converted to decimal and multiplied by sector size (512B) comes out to ~30TB which is how much you have written. That's really not that much. Average block erase count is 462, which is effectively P/E - this flash is good for several times that at least (and probably more like ten times). Roughly 3000 P/E though as rated, 462/3000 = 15%, 100 - 15 = 85% health.

So I can still still use it as OS drive or it's better to migrate to my other SSD which is faster (550mb/s) and keep this drive for photos and videos?

 

[Maxxify]

So I can still still use it as OS drive or it's better to migrate to my other SSD which is faster (550mb/s) and keep this drive for photos and videos?

I'm just saying that it's not at risk of failure from too many writes. The M500 uses rather solid MLC. That being said, it's slower flash especially at lower capacities. I don't consider sequential write performance to be particularly informative about the quality of the user experience, although actually MLC is known to be consistent there because it doesn't rely on SLC caching. However a modern TLC drive, e.g. MX500, will be faster across-the-board, but the improvements to 4K read/mixed (>+40%) are what you're more likely to notice outside of benchmarks or file transfers. So if you do have a faster SSD (again, that must be qualified) then absolutely.

The M500 would be useful as a caching or tiering drive, that is combined with HDDs to improve their performance.

 

[Jeff_120]

I have a XPG SX950U 1tb as second SSD, I can make some place like a small partition of 200gb for Win 10

 

[Maxxify]

Yeah, that's not a bad drive. I believe at that capacity it's quite similar to the Crucial MX500 which I consider a top performer for SATA.

 

[Jeff_120]

Btw I saw a comparison of ssd sata vs ssd nvme in real life, Win 10 booting for example has only 1 second difference. That's why I wonder if I need an nvme or not

 

[Maxxify]

Boot time won't be much different. NVMe has even been tested to be slightly slower in some cases (PCIe initialization). NVMe is definitely faster in use, but it can be hard to tell over a good SATA SSD.