The Crucial MX500 1TB SSD Review: Breaking The SATA Mold
by Billy Tallis on December 19, 2017 8:00 AM ESTMixed Random Performance
Our test of mixed random reads and writes covers mixes varying from pure reads to pure writes at 10% increments. Each mix is tested for up to 1 minute or 32GB of data transferred. The test is conducted with a queue depth of 4, and is limited to a 64GB span of the drive. In between each mix, the drive is given idle time of up to one minute so that the overall duty cycle is 50%.
The mixed random I/O performance of the Crucial MX500 is slightly slower than both the MX300 and the Intel 545s, but still above average for mainstream SATA SSDs. The 64L 3D TLC drives from Toshiba and Western Digital/SanDisk are significantly slower, and the Samsung 850 PRO and 850 EVO are still the fastest for this test.
The Crucial MX300 and Intel 545s are tied for first place for power efficiency on this test, with the MX500 coming in third place and well ahead of the other mainstream SATA drives.
 |
|||||||||
The Crucial MX500's performance during this test is a bit unsteady but generally good during the first half when the workload is more read-heavy. The MX500's speed picks up significantly when the workload becomes very write-heavy, but it take too long to start speeding up; other drives like the Samsung 850 PRO and EVO are steadily accelerating with increasing proportion of writes, starting fairly early in the test.
Mixed Sequential Performance
Our test of mixed sequential reads and writes differs from the mixed random I/O test by performing 128kB sequential accesses rather than 4kB accesses at random locations, and the sequential test is conducted at queue depth 1. The range of mixes tested is the same, and the timing and limits on data transfers are also the same as above.
The Samsung 850 PRO and EVO are the fastest SATA drives on the mixed sequential I/O test, and the Crucial MX500 falls into the second tier of drives, along with the other mainstream 64L 3D TLC drives and the MX300.
The Toshiba TR200 and OCZ VX500 score highest on power efficiency for the mixed sequential I/O test because they include little or no DRAM. The MX500 scores reasonably well overall but worse than the MX300 and the Intel 545s.
 |
|||||||||
The Crucial MX500 performs well in the early, read-heavy phases of the test but performance drops toward the middle and only recovers slightly at the end of the test. The minimum performance level across the entire test is quite high, but the fastest drives spend much less time performing at or near their minimum.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
90 Comments
View All Comments
Kristian Vättö - Wednesday, December 20, 2017 - link
MLC and TLC are different at die level. Once the wafer is produced it's no longer possible to switch from MLC to TLC or vice versa. Sure TLC could be used in pseudo-MLC mode by only programming the lower and middle pages, but that is not the same thing.mode_13h - Wednesday, December 20, 2017 - link
I'm not saying you're wrong, but please explain how Crucial's Dynamic Write Acceleration gets a significant write performance benefit by doing similar.MajGenRelativity - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link
I'm pleased with this product. Keep up the good work Micron, and keep lowering SSD prices!jjj - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link
A bit suspicious that there are no specs and prices for the 512GB version, hopefully the perf drop won't be too large.Other than that, all good here.
Billy Tallis - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link
Officially, Crucial is only launching the 1TB model today. The other capacities have to wait a little longer for a proper announcement.The Benjamins - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link
They will offically have a 250GB, 500GB, 1TB, 2TB models in 2.5" and up to 1TB in M.2http://www.crucial.com/wcsstore/CrucialSAS/pdf/pro...
witp - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link
Got other capacities prices, unofficialy ofc.Excl VAT, incl distributors' margin, for both M.2 and 2.5'' versions, that will be:
250GB ~74USD
500GB ~130USD
1TB ~238USD ; for comparison
2TB 2.5'' only ~465USD
Availability here in duckland ;) please don't mistake with Deutchland ;))) for W02/18
jjj - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link
I supposes my comment wasn't clear enough, wasn't suggesting it's your fault. Anyway, these things are always on purpose and it seems that they don't want to talk about lower capacities at all, they want people to see the MX500 perf as it is today at 1TB. A bit of a red flag but hopefully 512GB will be ok too.Billy Tallis - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link
I'm expecting them to sample at least one of the smaller capacities, if not all of them. I did mention recently that I probably would have given the BX300 an award if they had sent me the 120GB model, because that one is such a clear winner above the sparse competition in that capacity range.jjj - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link
They've been doing a pretty good job with both MX and BX series, good deals usually.With the new CEO they should start pushing harder in SSD. I think they had some issues a few months back and maybe that's why this one got delayed but I would expect to see them focusing more on SSD.