Crucial M550 Review: 128GB, 256GB, 512GB and 1TB Models Tested
by Kristian Vättö on March 18, 2014 8:00 AM ESTFinal Words
There are so many reasons why the M550 could be one of the best SSDs in the market. It has the best-in-class encryption support (along with Samsung 840 EVO) and it's also one of the only consumer-grade drives with power loss protection. Heck, it even supports DevSleep to enable low-power states in mobile platforms. Basically it has all the bells and whistles one could hope from a client drive. But there is one big "but": the performance. The M550 is supposed to be Crucial's high performance offering but compared to other high-end drives in the market, the performance is average at best. It's an upgrade over the M500, that's for sure, but that's not enough to make it to the medals podium.
The biggest Achilles' Heel of the M550 is its performance consistency. Given that it has been the focus of other manufacturers for the last year or so, it seems odd that Crucial hasn't done much to improve in this area. It's again better than the M500 consistency but compared to what SanDisk has been able to do with the same controller, the M550 doesn't impress. The potential saving grace would be pricing, so let's look there.
| NewEgg Price Comparison (3/17/2014) | ||||
| 120/128GB | 240/256GB | 480/512GB | 960GB/1TB | |
| Crucial M550 (MSRP) | $100 | $169 | $337 | $531 |
| Crucial M500 | $75 | $120 | $275 | $440 |
| Intel SSD 730 | - | $240 | $450 | - |
| Intel SSD 530 | $115 | $180 | $399 | - |
| OCZ Vector 150 | $138 | $190 | $390 | - |
| OCZ Vertex 460 | $100 | $185 | $360 | - |
| Samsung SSD 840 EVO | $95 | $160 | $265 | $554 |
| Samsung SSD 840 Pro | $119 | $208 | $420 | - |
| SanDisk Extreme II | $121 | $250 | $500 | - |
| Seagate SSD 600 | $105 | $170 | $380 | - |
The positive side is that pricing is extremely competitive. The M500 is already lowballing every other SSD in our comparison and the M550 comes in as a close second—and we expect street pricing to be lower than the MSRPs we've listed. The 840 EVO and Seagate SSD 600 are the only ones that beat the M550 in price but that's only at specific capacities (512GB) and with the current large sales that are going on. If Crucial is able to keep the pricing as competitive as our comparison suggests, other OEMs will definitely have a hard time competing with the M500 and M550.
All in all, I'm not sure how I should feel about the M550. On the one hand it feels a bit redundant to release a "high performance" drive that in reality is only average, but on the other hand, does it really matter if the price is right? I think not, but my concern is whether the M550 is fast enough to justify the added cost over the M500.
If you're a light user and price is the key purchase factor, then the M500 suffices and saves you money. However, if you're a power user and want performance, then it's better to look for the SanDisk Extreme II or Seagate SSD 600, or grab the Samsung 840 EVO 500GB on sale. The M550 kind of falls in between the two user groups and I'm not sure if there's any significant market there. For people who are not entirely sure whether the M500 is fast enough for their needs, the M550 is certainly a good and safe choice but I would have liked to see something competitive with the SanDisk Extreme II instead, even if the result was higher cost. It's not fast enough to close the gap, so the result ends up being a rehash of what we've already seen.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
100 Comments
View All Comments
hojnikb - Thursday, March 20, 2014 - link
I'm guessing there is lots of headrom in the marvell controler (seeing how other marvell drives perform) so there is a possibilty that they could squeze out a little bit more. But thats all on crucial.But i wouldn't call it quits, because with m4, they did boost read performance quite a bit after the lauch. Time will tell i guess.
nick2crete - Friday, March 21, 2014 - link
Thanks,just got one M550 256gb ,i have also the Samsung 840 pro ,to be honest i didnt see any performance difference ,ok i have them in Marvell 9230 pci e x2 controller and is well known that Samsung dont like Marvell controllers ..but still ..
emn13 - Thursday, March 20, 2014 - link
I guess expectations are everything. The m500 is the cheapest drive available at large size at the moment; with good features, and mediocre performance I think of it as a kind of baseline - if you can't beat the M500, then what's the point?So I guess the M550's fate really comes down to price, and time will tell how that goes.
trichome333 - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link
I finally went SSD with a 240gb M500 for $115 and Prime from Amazon. Went ahead and did a fresh install and Windows 7 literally loads in seconds after the logo on the dark screen forms. I think it restarts too fast as my BIOS post screen kinda sets there for a second before posting on restart. BF4 loads went from 2-3 minutes to 20 seconds. I coudnt be more happy coming from SATA II 7200k HDDs. We have several machines around the house and mine is mainly gaming so I dont do many big writes or convert video. What Ive noticed is huge increases and would advise anyone on the fence to make the move. M500 will be PLENTY for 99% of all users IMO.hojnikb - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link
Install Windows 8/8.1 and your boot time will be even shorter. Couple that with an uefi capable board and you can get near instant boot.nathanddrews - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link
Yeah, but then he'd have Windows 8 and lose all that productivity.hojnikb - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link
Meaning what ?mikato - Thursday, March 20, 2014 - link
The whole review is like "meh" and then BAM, look at that pricing. Ok thenDeath666Angel - Friday, March 21, 2014 - link
Any chance you could update the SSD Slumber Power chart with values for the other sizes? Seems weird to just have the smallest SSD in there, when capacity clearly adds to consumption.Hrel - Tuesday, March 25, 2014 - link
" can't say I'm very pleased with the IO consistency of the M550. There is a moderate increase (~4K IOPS vs 2.5K in M500) in steady-state performance but other than that there isn't much good to say. " What are you talking about? The Samsung is the only other 256GB drive in there and it's less consistent than the Crucial. Am I missing something? Those consistency numbers look great!