Crucial MX100 512GB Review

Performance Analysis

As expected, the MX100 512GB performs identically to the M550 512GB in almost every single benchmark. The only exceptions to this are in the high queue depth random read tests and in the Windows 7 boot time, where the MX100 is closer to the performance of the older M500.


The MX100 hits sequential read and write speeds of 520MB/sec and 485MB/sec in AS SSD, and 517MB/sec and 502MB/sec in CrystalDiskMark. These results are mid-league in each case (though they're still very quick), with OCZ and Samsung both typically a little ahead. It's worth remembering though that the Samsung SSD 840 Evo drives rely on a TurboWrite buffer to achieve their write speeds, so their performance will rapidly fall if this is filled before there's time to flush the buffer to the slower portion of the NAND.

The MX100 doesn't set any records when it comes to random performance either, though its performance with single queue-depth random write commands is very impressive, as only the Barefoot 3 OCZ drives have it beat.


Performance in the PCMark 7 Starting Applications workload is very good too, and only the SSD 840 Pro tops it, meaning the MX100 is quicker than the SSD 840 Evo here. However, Samsung's drive reverses this situation in the Gaming workload, beating the MX100's throughput of 125MB/sec by a further 25MB/sec. When it comes to Windows 7 boot times, the MX100 512GB and SSD 840 Evo 500GB are neck and neck, with less than a quarter of a second between them on average.

Conclusion

There's no denying this is a strong launch – Crucial has brought a whole load of performance to a price that's less than 35p per formatted gigabyte, making the notion of a mid-range builder having a 512GB SSD as a primary drive a much more realistic option than it was even six months ago. Even without its impressive feature set, including hardware level encryption, power loss protection, and RAIN, it would still be a good purchase, so these only serve to sweeten the deal further.


With that said, we still think this move is surprising in some ways, due to there being practically no difference between the 512GB MX100 and the 512GB M550. Of course, it's easier to transplant NAND onto an existing PCB than starting from scratch, especially as the architecture of the new 16nm NAND is apparently the same as the previous generation 20nm NAND, and we have to give kudos to Crucial for not artificially disabling features just to segregate products into different price brackets. However, as far as we can see, there's currently no reason not to opt for an MX100 over an M550 at 512GB, as the performance, endurance and features are all the same. Of course, 128GB and 256GB are more likely targets for the budget constrained buyers that Crucial is targeting, and ultimately it's not as if Crucial really loses out if a consumer buys the MX100 instead of the M550, but even so it's hard not to question the strategy.

At the time of writing, the SSD 840 Evo is available for £173, which is a little more expensive for a little less capacity but still very much worth considering. The Magician software suite and RAPID mode in particular are enticing, and things that Crucial currently has no answer for. In reality, neither drive is going to leave you disappointed. They're both fantastic performers and attractively priced, so it really comes down to which of their unique features is more relevant to your needs.