Mixed Random Read/Write Performance

For full details of how we conduct our Iometer tests, please refer to this article.

Iometer - Mixed 4KB Random Read/Write

Mixed random performance is great and received a nice upgrade from the MX100. The 250GB version doesn't do that well, but note that our mixed testing is conducted on a full drive, so the SLC cache can't do its magic. 

Iometer - Mixed 4KB Random Read/Write (Power)

Power consumption is relatively low given the performance, resulting in good efficiency.

Crucial MX200 250GB

The performance of the 250GB SKU drops as more writes are thrown into the mix. That's not surprising given that the drive is full, so the drive needs to transfer data from SLC to MLC inflight, which reduces overall performance. The higher capacities without the SLC cache perform very well, though, and the performance scales nicely as the portion of writes increases.

Mixed Sequential Read/Write Performance

Iometer - Mixed 128KB Sequential Read/Write

Mixed sequential performance isn't as good, but is still pretty decent when excluding the 250GB MX200.

Iometer - Mixed 128KB Sequential Read/Write (Power)

Power consumption is average too.

Crucial MX200 250GB

Again, as the drive is full, the 250GB just slows down with more write IOs. The higher capacities actually have a fairly even curve that isn't similar to the full-fledged bathtub curve that many drives have. It looks like Crucial has made an effort to improve mixed performance, which is always great news because it's an area where most drives are quite bad at.

Sequential Performance ATTO & AS-SSD
Comments Locked

62 Comments

View All Comments

  • beginner99 - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    SSD market has becoming just as boring as CPU. Time for new chipste and NVMe drives which will finally deliver an actual improvement. However for clients, it doesn't really matter...even my intel G2 was good enough.
  • JackF - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    I continue to be happy with my 1TB Samsung EVO drive. For $359, it is/was a good value, and consistently performs high on these comparison charts.

    Just out of curiosity, why is the Mushkin Reactor not included on any of the comparison charts? When I was considering an upgrade, it was at the top of my list, but you never include it in the comparison charts. You gave it a Anandtech recommendation back in February?
  • Teknobug - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    Sounds like what Kingston did with the SSDNow series, older SSDNow drives were fast but the newer ones are ridiculously slow, so now the same with Crucial?
  • MrSpadge - Saturday, May 23, 2015 - link

    Take another look at the BX100 - that's a really good value drive and anything but slow.
  • jabber - Saturday, May 23, 2015 - link

    The Kingston SSDs are great value as they are usually the cheapest SSDs on Amazon etc. And in most cases are probably being used to upgrade SATA II equipped hardware. In which case they will push 260MBps all day long. Seen many labour for days over SSD specs and reviews when in fact the machine they want to upgrade doesn't have SATA III.
  • der - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    Crucial for CRUCIAL performance. Eek!
  • eanazag - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    In the SSD market I only see excitement in PCIe/NVMe designs. I believe there is a place for SATA drives, but the differentiation needs to innovative; i.e. beyond performance. Warranty, reliability, consistency, software tools, and RAID support are areas for differentiation.

    After looking at the value & mainstream performance products in the chart the Samsung Evo is a compelling product. Crucial's BX line is a price undercutting product compared to the Evo and it doesn't do that. I say this because the BX feature set is sub-par to the Evo. The MX is the Evo's direct competitor.
  • KaarlisK - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    I do not get TRIM validation. There was never doubt that TRIM works in the sense that they LBAs contain zeroes. The question always was whether TRIMming a drive would restore degraded performance. And for some drives, it would not.
    Why isn't this verified any more? Or have I missed something?
  • creed3020 - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    Thanks so much for the review Kristian. Now I can finally compare this in Bench to others drives when making recommendations for clients.
  • zodiacfml - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    Price and warranty. Anyway, it is just getting more difficult to compete with Samsung which is the case and it will just get worse.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now