Crucial MX200 250 GB

[W1zzard]

Crucial's new MX200 SSD can utilize portions of its flash capacity in super-fast SLC mode, which makes it the fastest SSD we ever tested. Once the disk gets fuller, the drive automagically switches to MLC mode, block-by-block, all in the background, so you can maximize its disk-space usage.

Show full review

 

[krusha03]

Thank you for your review @W1zzard


May i suggest 2 things for future reviews of SSDs (i dont know if they have already been suggested):

1. Try to state the part number of the memory chips and their P/E cycles. I found that the ones used by crucial are micron MT29F256G08CECCBH6 but i cannot access the datasheet since it's limited to registered users and i assume you as a reviewer can get access to this information (sorry if I am wrong). While for crucial this is not necessary, a lot of other manufacturers dont declare the TBW of their SSDs and knowing the number of chips and their P/E cycles one can deduct the TBW until the remaining P/E cycles go to zero. It's a crude technique but gives a good estimate i think.
2. Have a normal 1- 2 TB 7200rpm HDD in the reviews as well so it gives people better perception of the speed up they are gonna get (since most people buying SSDs at the moment are coming from a HDD) and I for one would be really interested to see the effect of loading times on games / programs on SSD vs HDD. You could argue that I can compare the loading time of BF4 installed on my HDD to the loading times you get on the SSD for example but I would rather have a standard benchmark as comparison.

One again thank you for the review

 

[W1zzard]

I don't have access to those datasheets, but I'll check with Micron.

We used to have a HDD in those charts but it messes up the whole graph scaling because HDD = soooo slow

 

[natr0n]

Still using the mx100 happily.

 

[Deleted member 6693]

I can buy the MX200 500GB at a slightly better price ( 269$ ) (than 2 x 250GB) - but do you think that the 500GB performes on par or
better than the 250 GB??

 

[natr0n]

I can buy the MX200 500GB at a slightly better price ( 269$ ) (than 2 x 250GB) - but do you think that the 500GB performes on par or
better than the 250 GB??

Crucial's mx series doesn't cripple speeds between models , so it should perform the same.

 

[Ferrum Master]

Well I would like to see both Samsung 850ties in the charts...

Otherwise... I actually awaited more from these series.

PS.

Sheesh, my M550 actually has a firmware update, missed it totally.

 

[alwayssts]

Still using the mx100 happily.

Yeah, using 2x512GB myself (bought when on sale for $175 at newegg). I still have to navigate the mess of (now buried) info to figure out if I can get raid + trim to work on this mobo; I seem to recall the workaround with this chipset being a PITA. Was hoping I could just push it off until skylake, but that seems to be getting farther away, and not closer.

Crucial's mx series doesn't cripple speeds between models , so it should perform the same.

The mx200 doesn't because of dynamic write acceleration (M600 stuffs). That was the fatal flaw of the mx100 though...everything below 512GB performed worse, granted not badly enough to say they weren't worth their cost. The 512GB was/is still to an extent a pretty well-respected drive for it's kick-ass value, and according to what I've gathered, still a better mix of cost/size/performance compared to the mx200 250GB, while the 500GB MX200 is only slightly faster than it (while losing 12GB and costing substantially more).

The mx200 is overpriced imho. I feel confident recommending the MX100 512GB for size/value, the 850 pro/evo for performance, and/or waiting for the BX100 models to level out in pricing for absolute bottom-dollar value. It sounds like they will be cheaper than the mx100 ever was, and given not only are they the same speed to slightly faster than the 256GB mx100, but also that the mx100 was already the cheapest drive around in many cases...not a bad replacement (other than the outlying 512GB model).

I think this is a fair roundup of what I've been seeing in reviews:



http://us.hardware.info/reviews/591...-hardwareinfo-ssd-performance-scoren2013-2014

 

[Easo]

Well I would like to see both Samsung 850ties in the charts...

Same, lets have the latest and greatest! (not that I am biased or anything )
Though that means changing test setup.

 

[W1zzard]

I have ordered Sasmsung 850 Pro and Evo yday... will add it to future reviews.

 

[newtekie1]

So if it uses the same controller and NAND as the MX100, is it possible to flash an MX100 to make it an MX200? That would be sweeeeeet!

 

[Rowsol]

SSD performance barely changes now-a-days, but it really doesn't have to.

 

[Ebo]

SSD's are fast today, but it has allready maxed out the SATA III standard.
Im lucky enough to have a pci-ex M2 port, on my motherboard which delivers speed twice as fast as the SATA III standard and thats going to be my next upgrade regarding SSD.

I went from a Samsung 830 128GB to a Crucial mx100 512GB, and it works, not as much in speed but I have a lot more space on my primary drive today and its great, it just works.

 

[Jetster]

SSD's are fast today, but it has allready maxed out the SATA III standard.

SATA 3.0 can hit 800 Mb SSD will only go faster is you raid them. O wait raid would use two. NVM I'm tired