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
POST A COMMENT

62 Comments

View All Comments

  • busky2k - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    Thanks for the honest review. Its a shame the MX200 doesn't excel like its brethren. Reply
  • romrunning - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    Agreed. That's why I appreciate seeing independent tests of manufacturers' claims. Crucial/Micron just showed me why I'll still buy Samsung over their drives. It's a shame; I used to recommend the MX100 as the best value drive. Now it's the 850 EVO all the way for value drives. Reply
  • sabot00 - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    I feel the BX100 at the very least deserves consideration. The 850 Evo is not a blanket recommendation, especially for laptops where power consumption is important. The BX100 is probably the best mix of price / performance / power right now. Reply
  • Stoatie - Friday, February 12, 2016 - link

    Then what you really want to look at is energy use for a given IO task. Consider the 512GB EVO and BX:
    EVO: ~350MB/s @ 1.6W. = 218.75 MB/J =
    BX100: 300MB/s @ 1.4W = 200 MB/J

    For a given task the EVO will finish faster and do it with less total energy use.
    Reply
  • leexgx - Tuesday, May 24, 2016 - link

    but overall BX100 uses less power (i norm aim to buy BX100 for laptops unless SED drive is required then its norm intel 1000 or 2000 drive) Reply
  • Samus - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    Considering the price of the M500's (960GB model <$300) I still use those almost exclusively unless the MX\BX100's happen to be cheaper. Been very happy with Crucial drives since the C300, very few issues and decent performance for the price. Support is now excellent with their "storage executive" software making firmware updates relatively painless. Reply
  • emn13 - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    Given the fact that most workloads won't cause noticable differences between high end and low end drives, the price, and the power loss protection mean that the ancient m500 is probably a better choice both featurewise and pricewise than its newer, faster competitors for most PCs. Reply
  • leexgx - Saturday, May 23, 2015 - link

    Don't like the idea of DWA drives twice the amount of writes and silly more power draw (the bx100 is a good way on power just lacks FDE witch is unfortunate) mx200 is not on my list of drives to get Reply
  • edlee - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    i am not sure why crucial stopped producing m550, it performs better than mx100 and mx200 series, and was true successor to the legendary m4 drive Reply
  • DanNeely - Friday, May 22, 2015 - link

    Are the flash chips and controller it uses still available? If either has been discontinued they wouldn't have a choice. Even if the flash was available, but just significantly more expensive; keeping a competitive price would likely force their hand. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now