The Crucial MX500 500GB SSD Review: A Second Look
by Billy Tallis on February 2, 2018 9:30 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 slower overall than the MX300 and most of the current-generation competition. Even the faster 1TB model is a bit below average among half-TB drives.
The power efficiency of the MX500 on the mixed random I/O test has also regressed a bit, but it isn't much below par—only Samsung's drives really stand out as quite efficient on this test.
 |
|||||||||
The Crucial MX500's performance is a bit unsteady during the first half of this test, before climbing through the second half as the opportunities for combining and caching writes increase. Most of the competition shows much steadier performance increases across the entire test, though not always with such a pronounced spike at the end.
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 mixed sequential I/O performance of the MX500 is a slight improvement over the MX300, but it is still a bit slower than the 850 EVO or Intel 545s, and the MLC drives have a clear advantage.
While performance improved slightly, the Crucial MX500's power efficiency on the mixed sequential I/O test was a bit worse than the MX300. Aside from the big efficiency jump from the Samsung 860 PRO, the differences between the MX500 and the competition are small, but there's room for improvement.
 |
|||||||||
The performance curves for the two capacities of the Crucial MX500 show the same basic shape, with the drives performing the worst on mixes of about 60% reads. Samsung's drives bottom out in the second half of the test with mixes of around 30% reads, and the Intel 545s doesn't have any clear weak spot but its performance wavers slightly throughout the mixed sequential I/O test.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
25 Comments
View All Comments
KarlKastor - Saturday, February 3, 2018 - link
I would like to see a review of old SSDs (Indlinx Barefoot, first Intel SSDs, Sandforce SSDs, crucial c300, Samsung 830 for example) and how they would compete against today's drives. The test parcours is much more detailed and challenging for the drives. Can older drives pass this test reasonable good enough or is an upgrade to a modern ssd an major improvement, besides of capacity.velanapontinha - Saturday, February 3, 2018 - link
^this^peevee - Monday, February 5, 2018 - link
Most decent SLC SATA drives should be fine, but there were terrible examples like Kingston V-series which were not much better than HDDs to begin with.But I'd like to see the tests too.
Dragonstongue - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
am using your charts to compare the previous results of the MX200 vs the "new" MX500, and most of the numbers and data have changed to show the MX200 as "better" than it once was, if properly tested, this should not have been shown as such.IMHO, if a drive at a specific time using a specific set of drivers etc had say a data rate of 217.85 (crucial MX200 500gb) why does this review "change" to show this same drive now being 235 (a gain of around 8%)
numbers should not be becoming "magically better" IMO, unless firmware was changed without notification, or tests were not run properly the first time around or something like that?
it is quite hard to do direct comparisons when your data does not agree with itself ^.^
MX500 is supposed to be "a fair bit quicker" in most things than MX200 or MX300 (around 18% for the 500gb models..20 odd % for the 1tb models) something is not agreeing with itself based on your data/numbers/review, this is troublesome to say the least, so I suppose my question in this regard is, how "factual" is the testing methodology being used, such as latency numbers (where the original data of MX200 read higher numbers in ms than this review does making this review appearing as if the mx200 is that much faster than it was previously (less latency)
and the power consumption was also higher previously whereas in this review it uses "less" power, the heck is up with this?
if one screwed up original testing methodology "I understand" but, if one just changes data willy nilly to suit vendors or make the older or newer stuff appear better than it actually is, screw that noise (we already have plenty enough companies/corps that do that crud daily..like Ngreedia, Apple, Intel, MSFT etc)
Just saying, had my eye on the MX500, my MX100 256gb has been working very well for me last 2.5-3 years or something like that (still at 99% life) MX200 500gb still snappy (though not quite as snappy as the MX100 for some reason and I have never had it "loaded" currently is at 92% life and yet is at least a 9 month newer drive, have not copied.deleted anywhere close to as much as it claims I have which is confusing...MX500 is supposed to have that much more endurance, but, if the MX200 seems to "chew" endurance more than it should, that is not a good thing.
I have taken all the steps I can to reduce writing to the drive (unless needed) have trim on since day 1 etc...
Anyways, compare the "original" MX200 data you reviewed dated may 22, 2015, with this review dated february 2, 2018, quite a difference in appearances from how so so the drive appeared (MX200) vs the way it "now" appears (seems like not quite a poor drive, though it never was crud drive)
https://www.anandtech.com/show/9258/crucial-mx200-...
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12263/the-crucial-m...
would say IMO, double check your info (past info) so you are not making silly mistakes if possible (I know no one is perfect by all means, but I highly doubt you keep hundreds of drives on hand so you can test them a year or 2 down the line, most review sites do not, so does this mean pulling numbers out of thin air?)
take care, love your site by all means, lots of good reading ^.^
dpjtpa - Friday, June 14, 2019 - link
This is definitely the option I will be purchasing soon