AnandTech Storage Bench - Light

The Light trace is designed to be an accurate illustration of basic usage. It's basically a subset of the Heavy trace, but we've left out some workloads to reduce the writes and make it more read intensive in general. Please refer to this article for full details of the test.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Data Rate)

Now the 250GB MX200 enjoys a small benefit over the larger capacities when the drive is empty as the SLC cache is in its most effective state (the Light trace writes so little that all can be written in SLC). However, once the drive is full, the 250GB again loses a substantial part of its performance drops below any other SSD we have tested. Overall the BX100 is a better fit for light workloads, although the difference isn't huge (10-15%).

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Latency)

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Latency)

Power consumption remains good and competitive against other high-end drives, except for the full 250GB model that draws a lot more power as it needs to write all data twice.

AnandTech Storage Bench - Light (Power)

AnandTech Storage Bench - Heavy Random Performance


View All Comments

  • KAlmquist - Saturday, May 23, 2015 - link

    Take another look at Anandtech Bench. At the 500GB capacity, the mx100 beats the m550 by a small amount across the board. Dropping down to the 250GB capacity affects the write speed of the mx100 more than the write speed of the m550, so the m550 outperforms the mx100 on some benchmarks, but not by a lot. The bottom line is that the m550 and mx100 are close enough in performance that I doubt you would notice any difference in real life usage. Reply
  • petar_b - Sunday, September 4, 2016 - link

    I wish I know the answer to that question. I use plenty of M500 and M500, and I really miss them. I don't know if SanDisk could be decent alternative to M550, I don't know how additional features compare to each other (power loss, power management, etc etc). Is there any comprehensive comparison between Micron and SanDisk ?? Reply
  • Devo2007 - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    Small typo on page 3. Under the Destroyer (Data Rate) graph, it says the following:

    Despite the improved IO consistency, the MX200 doesn't have any advantage over the MX200 in our heaviest The Destroyer trace."

    I'm not sure if you meant MX100 or BX100 the second time
  • XZerg - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    same on the page 10 under the power consumption chart:
    but at ~60mW the MX200 enjoys a small benefit over the MX200
  • Ryan Smith - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    Thanks. Fixed. Reply
  • Essence_of_War - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    Yikes, not at all impressed with the DWA in the benchmark workloads! It seems like DWA is a highly dubious feature for a price mark-up over the BX series. At the right price point the larger capacity MX200 w/o DWA (500 and 1TB) still seem like excellent buys, they're just competing super-hard with their BX brethren. Reply
  • olafgarten - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    I'm still waiting to see what SanDisk does this year. Reply
  • romrunning - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    Thanks for the good review, Kristian. I liked the call-out on the continued lack of full power-loss protection, and I really liked the constructive criticism in your final words. Reply
  • Shadowmaster625 - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    why would they even release a product with an slc cache when the slc cache clearly does absolutely nothing? Reply
  • hulu - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    I'm sure the cache does *something* - mostly when you don't write large amounts of data for minutes on end.

    The problem with MX200 256GB's implementation is that Crucial is using too much of pseudo-SLC (all the space there is) and the drive ends up driving itself against the wall when the drive fills up. The drive still needs to keep up with the continuing drive writes and at the same time move existing data from SLC to MLC.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now