Crucial fills out MX300 SSDs with 275GB, 525GB, and 1TB models

Crucial's MX300 SSD impressed us with a solid blend of performance and capacity for its price. That drive was the first to use Intel and Micron's jointly-produced 3D NAND chips.

Now, Crucial is rounding out the MX300 lineup as promised with 275GB, 525GB, and 1TB drives to go with the 750GB model. While it's not announcing it today, Crucial also appears to have a 2TB MX300 drive in the works. Here's how the lineup looks today:

Crucial MX300
Capacity Suggested

price

Max sequential (MB/s) Max random (IOps)
Read Write Read Write
275GB $69.99 530 500 55k 83k
525GB $129.99 530 510 92k 83k
750GB $189.99 530 510 92k 83k
1TB $259.99 530 510 92k 83k
2TB ??? 530 510 92k 83k

Crucial says the MX300 capacities it's announcing today should be available immediately. The company also has M.2 SATA versions of the MX300 coming in 275GB, 525GB, and 1TB form factors. Those drives' performance figures are identical to their 2.5" cousins', and they should be available in late August. Each drive is backed by a three-year warranty. Crucial includes a copy of Acronis True Image HD migration software with each drive, too.

Comments closed
    • anotherengineer
    • 3 years ago

    For some reason I have a hard time purchasing any SSD without a 5 yr warranty.

    • albundy
    • 3 years ago

    nand is catching up to HDD! looking good!

      • One Sick Puppy
      • 3 years ago

      Yep. Still waiting to be able to fit 400GB of music onto a phone, tho.

        • Farting Bob
        • 3 years ago

        [url<]https://www.amazon.co.uk/SanDisk-Extreme-512GB-Memory-SDSDXPA-512G-G46/dp/B00NP699ZI[/url<] You can fit 512Gb of music on your phone already.

    • JosiahBradley
    • 3 years ago

    I still don’t see a great downward trend in price per gigabyte. We seem to have hit a wall at 1TB drives

      • ImSpartacus
      • 3 years ago

      Yeah, it’s a shame that we haven’t seen $400 2TB drives yet.

      • bwcbiz
      • 3 years ago

      Don’t think it’s a serious wall though, just that the 3D technology is still priced to the mid-range market (High-end SATA). For example, in the model lines where 2 TB drives are offered, the price per GB tends to be fairly close to the 1 TB models. It’s just that 1 TB is the sweet spot right now.

      Mechanical hard drives have the same pattern. The cheapest cost per GB doesn’t go with the maximum capacity drives. It’s usually at about 1/3 to 1/2 the max capacity. So with 10 TB drives coming into market, the sweet spot for mechanicals is most likely in the 4-6 TB range.

        • Waco
        • 3 years ago

        8 TB SMR drives are the best cost/GB.

    • chubbyhorse
    • 3 years ago

    Not bashing the drive; but one wonders where the unusual “extra” capacity is coming from on those class drives. Anyone else think they’re sacrificing spare blocks for capacity bragging rights?

      • DPete27
      • 3 years ago

      Overprovisioning

        • bittermann
        • 3 years ago

        It might be that what they thought they needed for over provisioning they really didn’t over the average life of the product, so they opened that space up for consumers.

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 3 years ago

      The TLC NAND in these drives uses 384-gigabit dies; I think that’s all there is to it.

        • Chrispy_
        • 3 years ago

        So does the 275GB model have 6 dies on it and just a meagre 13GB of spare area? (4.5%)

        If it’s that ratio for the 275GB model, does the 575 have 12 or 11 dies on it?

          • ImSpartacus
          • 3 years ago

          Don’t most controllers have a limit of only 8 die (or was it 16?).

          I, too, would be interested in the arithmetic that goes into the capacity calculations. Then again, I oughta read the damn review first, there’s that…

            • Chrispy_
            • 3 years ago

            I looked up the controller and it’s four channels for parallelism (you’re thinking of older drives which used either 8 or 10 channels for parallelism to compensate for older, slower NAND interfaces) but each channel can interleave multiple dies, which are often stacked on top of each other into the same package.

            The 750GB contains 8 packages, one per channel, with two dies per package. So, Crucial don’t need a lot of spare area for overprovisioning and the 750GB model has 768GB of RAW NAND and very little spare area (2% or so).

            The 750GB as reviewed uses 16 dies at 48GB per die for 768GB raw NAND. That’s a nice multiple of the 4 channels in the controller. After that it gets a bit weird:

            The 275GB probably uses 6 dies for 288GB raw NAND
            The 1050GB probably uses 22 dies for 1056GB raw NAND
            The 525GB probably uses 11 dies for 528GB raw NAND

            So logically they’d get best performance/NAND paralellism out of an 8-die (384GB), 16-die (768GB) and 24-die (1152GB) configurations to sell as 375/750/1125GB models respectively. Why not use multiples of four dies when dealing with a four-channel controller?

            The only answer I can come across is trying to match existing capacities in the market, which is a bit dumb as those capacities are pretty arbitrary already; We have, for example, 180GB/200GB/240GB/250GB/256GB drives (and now 275GB from Crucial). By price attrition, 240/480/960 seem to be the most popular sizes, so why not aim to match those?

            • nico1982
            • 3 years ago

            Tomshardware list NAND capacities: 288 GB, 576 GB, 1152 GB and 2304 GB.

            • Chrispy_
            • 3 years ago

            Okay, now I’m even more confused 🙂
            275GB model has only 13GB of spare area (under 2%) but the 525GB model has 51GB spare (nearly 10%)

            Why the random, arbitrary sizing if they’re overprovisioning with such different percentages and quantities per model, there’s no reason to it!

            • Wirko
            • 3 years ago

            384 gigabits = 384 Gib = 384 * 2^30 bits; the capacity of memory chips has always been expressed in b-inary-its.
            275 gigabytes = 275,000,000,000 bytes; the capacity of storage devices has always been advertised with decimal multipliers (CDs are an exception somehow, and shall we not remember the “1.44 MB” floppies).
            Hence the missing bits, likely.

            • Chrispy_
            • 3 years ago

            Thanks, but that’s irrelevant, since all manufacturers follow the same rules, so if that were the case they’d all be listed as 275/525… etc.

            Regardless of the fact that the technically correct notation for 1024Kilobytes is KiB, the vast, utterly overwhelming majoiry of people use KB instead because that’s what every operating system in the last two decades has used. When you see “5.2GB” in windows, that actually refers to 5.2 Gibibytes and is calculated in powers-of-two bytes. This is one of those instances where the officially correct notation has become archaic and everyone in the context of computing uses the nomenclature of the decimal system (Kilo/Mega/Giga/Tera) for the base-2 system that has been the default for years.

            It has been the norm, the accepted notation for so long now that storage manufacturers have to constantly put asterisks against all their product desriptions with footnotes to explain the difference.

            • nico1982
            • 3 years ago

            13 GB out of 288 is 4.5%, that is still only half of the extra provisioning area of the 525 GB model but nowhere near as bad as 2%, I think. Probably users who opt for the smaller capacity are less aggressive in their disk usage pattern. Or maybe the marketing dept found that 275 sounds much better than 265 😛

            • bwcbiz
            • 3 years ago

            The smaller overprovisioning area may also be why the drives only have a 3 year warranty rather than the 5 year warranty Samsung offers on the 850 EVO. Does Crucial’s software let you adjust the reserve space? If you add another 13-15 GB to the reserve, you still get a 270 GB drive with 10% overprovisioning, which isn’t a bad deal.

            • Chrispy_
            • 3 years ago

            Uh, yeah. Brainfart there.

            The difference between 4.5% and 10% isn’t so bad actually. It’s still odd given how arbitrary their model sizes are, but I guess they’re rounding up to the nearest 25GB so it’s close enough.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This