The Crucial MX300 750GB SSD Review: Micron's 3D NAND Arrives
by Billy Tallis on June 14, 2016 9:00 AM ESTAnandTech Storage Bench - Light
Our Light storage test has relatively more sequential accesses and lower queue depths than The Destroyer or the Heavy test, and it's by far the shortest test overall. It's based largely on applications that aren't highly dependent on storage performance, so this is a test more of application launch times and file load times. This test can be seen as the sum of all the little delays in daily usage, but with the idle times trimmed to 25ms it takes less than half an hour to run. Details of the Light test can be found here.
The MX300 establishes a small but clear lead in average data rate over the MX200 when the test is run on an empty drive, but for a full drive the performance again drops down to the level of budget planar TLC drives.
As with the Heavy test, the MX300 has an average service time on the Light test that puts it below the MLC drives but ahead of most TLC drives except when full.
The frequency of latency outliers shows the same split personality: keep plenty of spare area around and the MX300 performs like a (low-end) MLC drive, but fill it up and it will begin to struggle.
For power efficiency the MX300 is once again second only to the Crucial BX100, and substantially better than any other TLC.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
85 Comments
View All Comments
fanofanand - Tuesday, June 14, 2016 - link
Slower and more expensive than the competition. Bravo Micron/Intel! Bravo!ddriver - Tuesday, June 14, 2016 - link
They have no choice but to get realistic about the price.TheinsanegamerN - Tuesday, June 14, 2016 - link
Other SSD manufacturers are living in la-la land then? Because other OEMS seem to have no trouble selling SSDs for less.Arnulf - Tuesday, June 14, 2016 - link
They should get realistic about their naming as well - this is clearly a BX300 ... Or perhaps a BX298.32, given more crappy performance considering the BX100 ...Oxford Guy - Friday, July 8, 2016 - link
The drive beats the 850 EVO in the power consumption (except idle) tests, though. So, if the drive is going to be used in a laptop that doesn't idle much it could be a potential choice over the Samsung based on that.barleyguy - Tuesday, June 14, 2016 - link
I was hoping it would be faster than the MX200. I have 3 of those.It's top of the charts in power efficiency though, so it might be a great choice for a laptop. The performance difference is probably barely noticeable in real world use, but the battery life advantage might be tangible.
Also, launch price is $199 for 750 GB, which is not bad at all.
chrisso - Friday, June 17, 2016 - link
I also use an MX 200,which actually only has a write speed of 330.I suspect launch price is a suits guestimate at selling point.
Real world differences are indeed minimal, price will be the main selling point later for the mainstream crowd (me).
chrisso - Friday, June 17, 2016 - link
(my drive IS the humble 256 gig, btw). I would buy a 750 later as pointed out,prices are a tumbling.eek2121 - Tuesday, June 14, 2016 - link
Prices quoted are MSRP, as an example, the Trion 150 listed above debuted at 38.5 cents per gb. Don't be surprised to see this drive drop below 20 cents a gig in a few months.Gondalf - Wednesday, June 15, 2016 - link
Strange comment. Anandtech article is not negative at all about this SSD driver, Techreport too says "recommended" at the end of the review.So you are a little biased in my opinion.