Mixed 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%.

Mixed 4kB Random Read/Write

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.

Mixed 4kB Random Read/Write (Power Efficiency)

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.

Mixed 128kB Sequential Read/Write

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.

Mixed 128kB Sequential Read/Write (Power Efficiency)

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.

Sequential Performance Power Management
POST A COMMENT

90 Comments

View All Comments

  • tech6 - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link

    It's nice to finally see a Samsung alternative that doesn't suck. Reply
  • ddrіver - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link

    I am thoroughly impressed. And that's not something I take lightly. Samsung will have to get their game on now, with the age old 850 series no longer being king of the hill in SATA drives. Reply
  • mode_13h - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link

    Not sure if you noticed this, but they recently released a new 850 EVO with 3D NAND. Reply
  • ddrіver - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link

    Until now the 850 line was unquestionably better than everything else in almost every regard, except price maybe. It's enough if the competition is "close enough", even without actually taking the crown. Right now Samsung isn't the go-to SSD with good alternatives like the MX500. That's enough for me. Reply
  • Alistair - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link

    Samsung has by far the worst customer service and warranty coverage. Good luck actually getting them to replace a drive in Canada. Glad to see Crucial stepping up their game, buying one immediately. Reply
  • Alistair - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link

    Just to expand on this. Samsung is forcing customers to contact newegg for warranty coverage. I've already spent weeks just trying to get Samsung to respond to their normal emails. Newegg obviously isn't responsible for a year old drive failing. They have no RMA process, and I've already contacted their chat, voice, and email.

    Dear Samsung Valued Customer,

    We have received your email and would like to thank you for the information that you sent us however, you will need to contact the place of purchase for warranty coverage. We already have notify the dealer and they will be calling you shortly to offer warranty coverage.
    We apologize for the inconvenience this issue may have caused you.

    Thank you/Merci

    Regards,

    (name redacted)
    Samsung Electronics Canada
    Reply
  • Alistair - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link

    Nobody is getting coverage in Canada:

    https://forums.redflagdeals.com/has-anyone-dealt-s...
    Reply
  • Alistair - Tuesday, December 19, 2017 - link

    This was purchased from Newegg.ca Reply
  • Arnulf - Wednesday, December 20, 2017 - link

    Interesting. Over here in EU it is far more common to deal with the seller/store.

    I buy hardware from a store, not the manufacturer, store gives me warranty on goods purchased and I don't care what hoops they have to jump through (RMA with the manufacturer? Deal with the national distributor? etc.) to get things settled as long as they beat the deadline(s).
    Reply
  • Alistair - Wednesday, December 20, 2017 - link

    Basically they sell the product in Canada, but have no procedure in place to provide their warranty service. That's not a warranty at all. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now