Crucial's move to give the "MX" branding to the MX300 slightly tarnishes the reputation of the MX Series in my opinion. You can usually count on "MX" to stand for the highest possible performance, whereas "BX" stands for budget. Due to the use of TLC chips, which are inherently slower in nature, the MX300 only ranks in the middle of our test group when averaged over our real-life tests, and is 1% slower than the MX200. Shouldn't a new product with a higher model number be faster than the previous one? We used the brand-new M0CR040 firmware, which was released earlier this month.

Consumers are also very wary of TLC chips, which are being introduced these days to further reduce SSD pricing beyond what was possible with MLC. In a crowded SSD market where most SATA-connected drives perform almost the same, price is what matters most, and here, the MX300 can definitely score big.
The tested 750 GB SSD is currently available online for $170, which makes it the second-cheapest drive in terms of dollar per gigabyte, right after the Trion 150 with a few percentage points less performance. The MX300 shatters the 30 cents per GB barrier easily, with only 23 cents per GB - and most competing SSDs are still slightly above 30 cents. Performance per dollar is also excellent, beating the MX200 or Samsung 850 EVO by a large margin.

Unless you absolutely need the highest performance (buy PCIe SSDs for that) or have a very write-heavy workload (buy MLC or SLC drives), I'm finding it hard to not recommend the MX300. Personally, I love the MX200 Series, but with only a few percent difference in real-world performance and the MX300 being available in larger capacities at significantly better pricing, I feel like I might be part of the TLC camp soon.