Final Words

Shortly put, the MX100's task is to replace the M500 and it does that brilliantly. While the MX100's main goal is to lower the price by using smaller lithography NAND, it also provides a minor increase in performance over the M500 and offers the same industry-leading set of features. Given the success of the M500, Crucial had no reason to do a major overhaul with the MX100 and to be completely honest, there isn't really anything left to be desired. The performance and features are already present, so I really can't see how Crucial could make the MX100 significantly better. Sure the performance isn't record breaking but the MX100 isn't aimed at the enthusiast and professional segment where that is a concern.

My only criticism is towards the M550 and how it's positioned in the market. As I mentioned in the M550 review already, I don't really see where the drive fits in the market. It's not fast enough to compete in the enthusiast/professional space but on the other hand there is no reason for an average user to pay the premium for it, especially as the MX100 provides equivalent performance in nearly all scenarios. The 1TB M550 is the only model that makes sense but that is only because the MX100 tops out at 512GB; to be honest I would rather have a 1TB MX100 with the M550 being discontinued. I think the M550 as it currently stands doesn't really contribute anything to Crucial's SSD portfolio and all it does is cause confusion among potential buyers.

NewEgg Price Comparison (6/2/2014)
  120/128GB 240/256GB 480/512GB
Crucial MX100 (MSRP) $80 $110 $225
Crucial M550 $100 $165 $305
Crucial M500 $72 $110 $230
Plextor M6S (MSRP) $130 $165 $400
Plextor M5 Pro Xtreme $200 $230 $459
ADATA Premier Pro SP920 $90 $150 -
Intel SSD 730 - $205 $440
Intel SSD 530 $110 $165 -
OCZ Vector 150 $115 $200 $339
OCZ Vertex 460 $114 $400 $280
Samsung SSD 840 EVO $110 $181 $280
Samsung SSD 840 Pro $144 $250 $400
SanDisk Extreme II $98 $180 $420
Seagate SSD 600 $105 $136 $314

And here's where the other shoe drops. The MSRPs (Manufacturer Suggested Retail Prices) are just insane; none of the big brands even come close to the prices of the MX100. You are basically getting a 256GB MX100 for the price of a 120/128GB SSD, which is awesome. Obviously these are not final prices but in my experience the MSRPs tend to be more conservative than aggressive, so final retail prices may end up being even lower. I wonder how Samsung in particular is going to respond because the 840 EVO should have a cost advantage due to the use of TLC NAND, but right now the EVO is priced $30 to $70 higher while not providing any substantial added value.

All in all, I have nothing negative to say about the MX100. With the performance and feature set, combined with pricing that basically doubles the amount of storage you get for your dollar, it's an absolute no-brainer. Unless you are an enthusiast or professional with a heavy IO workload, the MX100 is currently the drive with the best bang for the buck in the market by far.

Power Consumption
POST A COMMENT

44 Comments

View All Comments

  • extide - Monday, June 02, 2014 - link

    Wow, 256Gbit dies! That would mean up to 2TB in a standard 2.5" SSD -- Crazy! Reply
  • hojnikb - Monday, June 02, 2014 - link

    Actually one could fit 4TB into a standard 2.5" (or even 8GB when using 32 packages) but the problem is, as far as i can tell, no single controller can adress so much space. Reply
  • hojnikb - Monday, June 02, 2014 - link

    *TB obviously :) Reply
  • extide - Monday, June 02, 2014 - link

    Yeah but it's a chicken and egg thing I think. There seems to be a max price cap of about $600 for these SSD's, and so for 64gbit NAND that was ~512GB and 128Gbit NAND it is about 1TB. When they design a controller to exist during the lifetime of 256Gbit NAND there is a good chance that someone is actually going to make a 2TB drive because that much NAND would then fit inside that 'max price' so they will design the controller for that max amount. And in the same vein a contrller for the 128Gbit era would be 'OK' with a 1TB max.... if that makes sense, heh. Reply
  • hojnikb - Monday, June 02, 2014 - link

    Also, there is already 2TBs drives out thre on the old 64Gbit flash :) Reply
  • fruitcrash - Wednesday, June 04, 2014 - link

    It's not that you can't address it (for ONFI NAND you can use the Volume Select command), but that you can't have more than about 8 chips on a channel because of capacitive loading. Reply
  • extide - Monday, June 02, 2014 - link

    NOTE: I am talking about the future NAND, NOT what is used in this drive. Reply
  • hojnikb - Monday, June 02, 2014 - link

    Still, 256Gbit dies can can't help you much, if controller can't adress that much space. As i've said above, once could fit 4-8TB of flash, it's just isn't possible yet. Reply
  • hojnikb - Monday, June 02, 2014 - link

    Any details on the 128GB version ?
    I've read somewhere, that it will be using the old 20nm flash...
    Reply
  • blanarahul - Monday, June 02, 2014 - link

    Crucial sucks balls at making performance drives.. They should leave that market to Sandforce and Samsung, and concentrate on beating Samsung in value SSD market... Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now