AnandTech Storage Bench 2013

Our Storage Bench 2013 focuses on worst-case multitasking and IO consistency. Similar to our earlier Storage Benches, the test is still application trace based - we record all IO requests made to a test system and play them back on the drive we are testing and run statistical analysis on the drive's responses. There are 49.8 million IO operations in total with 1583.0GB of reads and 875.6GB of writes. I'm not including the full description of the test for better readability, so make sure to read our Storage Bench 2013 introduction for the full details.

AnandTech Storage Bench 2013 - The Destroyer
Workload Description Applications Used
Photo Sync/Editing Import images, edit, export Adobe Photoshop CS6, Adobe Lightroom 4, Dropbox
Gaming Download/install games, play games Steam, Deus Ex, Skyrim, Starcraft 2, BioShock Infinite
Virtualization Run/manage VM, use general apps inside VM VirtualBox
General Productivity Browse the web, manage local email, copy files, encrypt/decrypt files, backup system, download content, virus/malware scan Chrome, IE10, Outlook, Windows 8, AxCrypt, uTorrent, AdAware
Video Playback Copy and watch movies Windows 8
Application Development Compile projects, check out code, download code samples Visual Studio 2012

We are reporting two primary metrics with the Destroyer: average data rate in MB/s and average service time in microseconds. The former gives you an idea of the throughput of the drive during the time that it was running the test workload. This can be a very good indication of overall performance. What average data rate doesn't do a good job of is taking into account response time of very bursty (read: high queue depth) IO. By reporting average service time we heavily weigh latency for queued IOs. You'll note that this is a metric we have been reporting in our enterprise benchmarks for a while now. With the client tests maturing, the time was right for a little convergence.

Storage Bench 2013 - The Destroyer (Data Rate)

Quite surprisingly, the MX100 is slightly faster than the M550 in our 2013 Storage Bench. The differences are not significant, but it's still surprising given that M550 is supposed to be Crucial's higher performing drive. Especially at 256GB this is odd because the M550 has lower capacity NAND that should result in more parallelism and thus more performance, but that doesn't seem to be that case. I'm guessing that Crucial has been able to tweak the firmware to unleash more performance from the Marvell 9189 controller, which would explain why the MX100 is faster than the M550. Then again, the ADATA SP920 with 128Gbit NAND and Micron designed firmware is also faster than the 256GB M550, so it looks like M550 doesn't take full advantage of the lower capacity NAND.

Storage Bench 2013 - The Destroyer (Service Time)

Performance Consistency AnandTech Storage Bench 2011
Comments Locked

50 Comments

View All Comments

  • juhatus - Wednesday, June 4, 2014 - link

    Does the Samsung XP941 use Samsung's 3D NAND? Availability at least would fit as the first drive's where seen last Q3/13 on OEM machines..
  • juhatus - Wednesday, June 4, 2014 - link

    To answer for my own question: Yes and that also explains XP941's rarity

    http://english.etnews.com/device/2963105_1304.html
  • Kristian Vättö - Wednesday, June 4, 2014 - link

    So far Samsung has only been sampling 3D NAND SSDs to enterprise OEMs, although they have just started providing some to the PC OEMs with the new 32-layer NAND. The XP941 is still regular MLC but Samsung it's only available for OEMs.
  • Samus - Thursday, June 5, 2014 - link

    I've installed over 100 M500's and have personally been using a C300 since 2010 in my daily driver laptop. Rock solid drives. Who cares if they're 10% "slower" than a Sandforce drive.
  • Onyx2291 - Thursday, June 5, 2014 - link

    Just ordered a 512GB for $199.99. Such good value.
  • beatsbyden - Thursday, August 21, 2014 - link

    Great bargain for the price. I heard the 256GB drive is in fact a 320 GB drive with 20% overprovisioning...that would even be more a bargain. Performance decrades less than with all other brands that only have 7%. I also like the protection and encryption on the mx 100. Still have to chose between the samsung 840 evo 250gb and the mx100. Would chose the mx100 if had better writing performance...but now i have doubts...Gonna use it for audioproduction...so lots of reads and writes that would make the samsung evo 840 a better choice right....i have a Samsung 830 128GB now and i'm satisfied with it, never failed me, but need a bigger one. Should i stick with Samsung or get the MX 100?
  • SpartanTech - Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - link

    Get the 512GB MX100, should satisfy your needs and provides even more storage....

    PS: Don't think you'll notice any difference tbh
  • Canadaram - Wednesday, October 22, 2014 - link

    Because Crucial is a direct seller as well as a wholesaler, they can set the MSRP much closer to wholesale/street pricing levels, so don't expect as large of a discount from MSRP to street as you would on retail brands.
  • akin1231 - Tuesday, December 2, 2014 - link

    This drive is not a steal, it's a massive rip off because it doesn't work reliably. There's a massive issue with it falling off intermittently but frequently. There's no fix for it yet. Check the Crucial forum:
    http://forum.crucial.com/t5/Crucial-SSDs/MX100-wil...

    I bought 3 of these... I'm a sucker
  • fossxplorer - Friday, April 10, 2015 - link

    Good and very important info.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now