In the lab: Crucial’s MX500 SSDs

Crucial's MX-series SSDs have long been major players in the enthusiast SATA market. The MX300 was the first 3D-NAND equipped SSD that Micron's retail arm released to the masses. Despite a downgrade from its predecessor's MLC to TLC, the drive still delivered enough performance to satisfy us.

IMFT's 3D NAND has continued to iterate and improve, as you doubtless know if you've been following our storage coverage. The joint venture's newer 64-layer TLC left us impressed when we saw it deployed in Intel's 760p gumstick. Micron has leveraged the same stuff to build its MX300 successor, the MX500. In addition to upgrading the 3D NAND inside the drive, Micron saw fit to leave Marvell behind and harness Silicon Motion's SM2258 to power its latest.

Capacity Max sequential (MB/s) Max random (IOps)
Read Write Read Write
250 GB 560 510 95K 90K
500 GB 560 510 95K 90K
1 TB 560 510 95K 90K
2 TB 560 510 95K 90K

While the MX300's speeds were more than adequate, we'd love to see the transition to 64-layer 3D NAND wring some more performance out of the newest MX drive. We've got 500GB and 1TB versions of the MX500 on hand in our storage labs, primed for the benchmark gauntlet. Stay tuned for our full review.

Comments closed
    • hansmuff
    • 2 years ago

    I just put one into a new Ryzen 2400G build. Very, very nice. Win10 install was very quick. $140 for 500GB at Amazon.

    I didn’t quite need NVMe performance in this build, and the platform doesn’t invite it anyway because it doesn’t have a lot of CPU PCIe lanes. I’m perfectly happy with it.

    • Chrispy_
    • 2 years ago

    I’m not seeing MX500 in M.2 format anywhere yet. It’s really quite nice to not worry about drive bays and cabling anymore and with the MX300 the M.2 was cheaper than the SATA variant as well.

    Sure, you can do what I do and Velcro a 2.5″ drive to some free surface if you don’t have a spare bay, but I feel that M.2 is well on the way to surpassing 2.5″ drives.

      • Srsly_Bro
      • 2 years ago

      M.2 is very nice. Some mid-range boards have 3 M.2 slots. I’d never need 2.5″/3.5″ drives on a client rig ever. M.2 and access the rest over the network.

    • UberGerbil
    • 2 years ago

    Nice to see that table with consistent numbers throughout. It was always annoying to lose performance (even if only potential) just because you didn’t need or chose not to pay for the largest capacity.

      • DPete27
      • 2 years ago

      Don’t suppose all these limits match the SATA interface exactly?

        • BobbinThreadbare
        • 2 years ago

        Does SATA have asymmetric read and write specs?

      • meerkt
      • 2 years ago

      They’re unlikely to be the sustained figures.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 2 years ago

    As long as it’s not a step backward like the BX200 compared to the BX100, I’m sure I’ll be happy. The 525GB MX300 in my Ryzen box (the drive is older than the platform it’s connected to) has been very steady for the length of my ownership. I got it right around the time Tony [url=<]reviewed it[/url<]. I'd love a 1TB drive for my more-frequently-used games, if pricing pans out.

      • HERETIC
      • 2 years ago

      You’ll be happy-It’s a huge step up-Comparable to 850EVO,which all other drives are measured against.
      There’s also the BX300 out there……………………………

    • RickyTick
    • 2 years ago

    The MX300 has a prominent spot in the TR System Guide. Looking forward to some comparisons.

    • Takeshi7
    • 2 years ago

    I got one of the 500GB ones in my work laptop. So far, so good.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This