Crucial MX100 512GB Solid State Drive Review



/ 6 months ago

Next Page »

2 Flares Twitter 1 Facebook 0 Google+ 1 LinkedIn 0 StumbleUpon 0 Pin It Share 0 Reddit 0 Email -- Filament.io Made with Flare More Info'> 2 Flares ×

Introduction


CrucialMX100-512_Top

The SSD market these days is flooded with high performance drives that are geared to push the boundaries of what is possible both on the SATA interface, but now also on the mSATA and M.2 platforms as the desktop market moves forward in an era where speed is everything and where the focus in my eyes is too concentrated. There are, however loads of options out there on the budget end of the scale and it comes as no surprise, due to the leaking of information from a handful of sources, that Crucial have been working away to update their SSD portfolio to bring a fresher and better performing budget drive to the market.

Set to replace the M500, which I took a look at little over a year ago, the MX100 is Crucial’s answer to the growing demand for budget drives that offer both strong levels of performance and high capacities – 128GB drives, for some users, simply does not cut it any more. Built on a platform comprising of Marvell’s latest 88SS9189 controller with a custom revision of the firmware, specifically for the MX100, the drive features Micron’s latest 16nm NAND design with capacities ranging from 128GB right up to 512GB as we have in this review. Crucial are pushing this drive towards the upgrade market, where users may have a small, older SSD already in their systems, or more commonly as a performance upgrade to a system which is running on an ageing hard drive. Whichever background the user is coming from, with speeds of up to 550MB/s read and 500MB/s write (on the 512GB drive) with IOPs levels of around 90k read and 85k write – again on the 512GB model, users are certainly set to see a significant boost in performance over their current setup.

In addition to high performance levels, Crucial have also made the drive cheaper to run, with a design over the M500 which is reportedly 94% more efficient, requiring around 150mW of power under full load and around 100mW when sat idle and with a high level of endurance that tops 72TB – that’s 40GB of data being written to the drive each day for 5 years straight, a 3-year warranty is added on top – just in case anything does go wrong.

CrucialMX100-512_Package

In order to make the upgrade process as easy as possible, a copy of Acronis True Image Home is bundled in with each drive, allowing the users current installation of Windows and all of their data to be moved over to the drive with ease and this can mean that in under an hour you can have your system upgraded to a high performance SSD whilst leaving you with the desktop environment and setup that you had with the older drive. For laptops that require a 9.5mm drive for installation, a 2.5mm spacer is included which can be stuck on to the drive in a couple of seconds.

2 Flares Twitter 1 Facebook 0 Google+ 1 LinkedIn 0 StumbleUpon 0 Pin It Share 0 Reddit 0 Email -- Filament.io Made with Flare More Info'> 2 Flares ×

Topics: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Next Page »


  • Wayne

    Whadda ya mean 128GB drives don’t cut it anymore? They’re still VERY relevant today. Not everybody can afford this cheapo 512 GB drive not every market will get it. When the cost per GB for all SSD’s fall into this category worldwide then things may change a bit but until then a 128GB SSD is still better than no SSD at all.

    • Chris Hadley

      Granted 128GB drives are still relevant, but what I’m implying is that for a notable number of people, 128GB drives are not quite enough once installed software etc is taken into account. At this level in the market, the number of drives that offer such high capacities are limited and like all things, getting the balance between price and capacity is, in some cases, rather tricky.

      • Wayne

        I know what you mean’t and I to an extent I agree. If I offended you, I apologise but I know as an reviewer myself albeit ex reviewer you have to be pretty thick skinned at times. ;)

        • Chris Hadley

          Don’t worry no offence was taken, at the end of the day a review is my thoughts on the product, market, pricing, etc etc and naturally there are going to be people that agree and some that don’t.

          On top of this there are time when we miss little bits out and/or have a typo here and there – we are human after all and these things out. If you found a typo in the review for example and point it out, its not the end of the world, unlike printed press I can go back in and amend it.

    • Garzhad

      Very relevant. I would consider 128GB SSD fine for most people, with ~250GB preferred. After that it’s really not worth it. Use the SSD for the OS and demanding applications that load many GB’s of data across thousands of files(games, ect.) into memory; they benefit the most.
      For everything else, get a WD Blue or Seagate Barracuda, the varieties with the 1TB platter size. Those HDD’s can push 280MB/s consecutive read/write which is more then enough for media and 90% of the applications out there and do so at VASTLY reduced $ per GB. You can get a 1TB Blue for 1/3rd the cost of a 250GB SSD. It’s the most cost effective storage solution; use the SSD only for what needs/benefits from it and everything else on a speedy HDD.

      And it’s something that will hold true for years to come; SSD’s are getting faster bigger and cheaper, but so are HDD’s.

      • Wayne

        If you thinking of buying a 120GB SSD, why bother when you can get a Crucial 240GB for the price of any other brand 120GB?
        If Crucial can hold this price other SSD manufacturers had better react quickly or else they’re going to get slaughtered.
        If I were in the market for an SSD I would latch onto this one, no question about it.

        • Garzhad

          Why bother getting a slower Crucial SSD when when you can wait for Samsung, Plextor or SanDisk’s faster 250GB options to go on sale(like they are now) for roughly the same price?
          Personal choice.
          ATM Samsung and Sandisk options are all nearly price-parity with this and faster, including the 128GB options. The EVO still crushes it.
          From the looks of it they could easily pull an nVidia, price drop across all models and push Crucial right back out of the water again.
          If I were in the market for an SSD I would research more, read/compare more reviews, and snag an SSD that’s known as a reliable, rock solid performer that’s as fast as my budget allows while still meeting my space requirements, preferably on sale.
          But, having 2x250GB Evo’s for my devices at only $120 a pop, i’m not anymore.

          • Wayne

            Or you can wait for another 6 months to a year and go for broke by picking up a 512GB at today’s 128GB prices. It’s not a guaranteed though quite likely.
            A general user is not fussed by benchmark figures and reviews and likely won’t notice the speed difference between the Crucial and Samsung Evo, it’s the lowest sticker price that’s going to win.