Single page Print

CrystalDiskMark — transfer rates
TR regulars will notice that we've trimmed a few tests from our usual suite of storage results. The drives were all benchmarked in the same way, but we've excluded the results for tests that have grown problematic or less relevant over time. This abbreviated format should be a little easier to digest until our next-gen storage suite is ready.

First, we'll tackle sequential performance with CrystalDiskMark. This test runs on partitioned drives with the benchmark's default 1GB transfer size and randomized data. We've color-coded the results to make the Crucial drives easier to spot.

Most of the SSDs are closely matched in the sequential read speed test. There, the MX100 keeps up with the M550 and sits roughly in the middle of the pack overall.

The 512GB version hangs with its M550 counterpart in the write speed test, too, but the 256GB drive is 155MB/s slower. Blame the 16GB NAND dies. The M550 256GB uses smaller 8GB dies, giving it twice the parallelism of the equivalent MX100—and none of the performance penalty, at least in this test.

HD Tune — random access times
Next, we'll turn our attention to random access times. We used HD Tune to measure access times across multiple transfer sizes. SSDs have near-instantaneous seek times, so it's hard to graph the results on the same scale as mechanical drives. The WD Black and Seagate SSHD will sit out this round to focus our attention on the SSDs.

First, note the scales. The 1MB access times are measured in single-digit milliseconds, while the 4KB results are in the tens of microseconds. SSDs are really, really good at this sort of thing.

The MX100 doesn't exhibit any signs of weakness in the random read tests. However, the 256GB version struggles with 1MB random writes. It's notably slower than the 512GB variant, though it's still quicker than the equivalent M500.