The Crucial MX500 500GB SSD Review: A Second Look
by Billy Tallis on February 2, 2018 9:30 AM ESTSequential Read Performance
Our first test of sequential read performance uses short bursts of 128MB, issued as 128kB operations with no queuing. The test averages performance across eight bursts for a total of 1GB of data transferred from a drive containing 16GB of data. Between each burst the drive is given enough idle time to keep the overall duty cycle at 20%.
The Crucial MX500 is tied with the BX300 for fastest burst sequential read performance from SATA SSDs in this capacity range, even managing to beat the Samsung 860 PRO by a few MB/s.
Our test of sustained sequential reads uses queue depths from 1 to 32, with the performance and power scores computed as the average of QD1, QD2 and QD4. Each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB transferred, from a drive containing 64GB of data.
The sustained sequential read performance of the MX500 is much better than the MX300, but still not up to Samsung's level, and the 500GB MX500 is significantly slower than the 1TB model on this test.
Crucial's power efficiency on the sustained sequential read test is still poor, and the 500GB MX500 is worse off than the 1TB model. Meanwhile, Samsung has significantly raised the bar with the 860 PRO.
 |
|||||||||
Unlike the 1TB MX500, the 500GB MX500 hits its full sequential read performance at QD1, but neither can maintain it through the entire test. The 1TB and 500GB models use almost exactly the same amount of power, but the 1TB model is significantly faster.
Sequential Write Performance
Our test of sequential write burst performance is structured identically to the sequential read burst performance test save for the direction of the data transfer. Each burst writes 128MB as 128kB operations issued at QD1, for a total of 1GB of data written to a drive containing 16GB of data.
The burst sequential write performance of the Crucial MX500 is tied with the Samsung 850 EVO for being the fastest result from a TLC SSD. The 500GB MX500 scores slightly higher than the 1TB model, and is a big improvement over the MX300.
Our test of sustained sequential writes is structured identically to our sustained sequential read test, save for the direction of the data transfers. Queue depths range from 1 to 32 and each queue depth is tested for up to one minute or 32GB, followed by up to one minute of idle time for the drive to cool off and perform garbage collection. The test is confined to a 64GB span of the drive.
On the sustained sequential write test, the MX500 actually performs slightly worse than the MX300, but again the 500GB MX500 is a bit faster than the 1TB model. What was a tie between the MX300 and the 850 EVO last year is probably going to be a small but clear win this year for the 860 EVO over the MX500, but against other TLC drive the MX500 still looks great.
The two capacities of the Crucial MX500 show the same power efficiency during the sequential write test. They're less efficient than the MX300 was, but still near the top of the chart.
 |
|||||||||
By QD4 the 500GB Crucial MX500 is almost at its full sequential write speed, and its performance steadily gains the last few percent over the rest of the test. At lower queue depths, the MX500 is actually slightly slower than the MX300, but the MX300 couldn't retain its performance for the entire test.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
25 Comments
View All Comments
KarlKastor - Saturday, February 3, 2018 - link
I would like to see a review of old SSDs (Indlinx Barefoot, first Intel SSDs, Sandforce SSDs, crucial c300, Samsung 830 for example) and how they would compete against today's drives. The test parcours is much more detailed and challenging for the drives. Can older drives pass this test reasonable good enough or is an upgrade to a modern ssd an major improvement, besides of capacity.velanapontinha - Saturday, February 3, 2018 - link
^this^peevee - Monday, February 5, 2018 - link
Most decent SLC SATA drives should be fine, but there were terrible examples like Kingston V-series which were not much better than HDDs to begin with.But I'd like to see the tests too.
Dragonstongue - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link
am using your charts to compare the previous results of the MX200 vs the "new" MX500, and most of the numbers and data have changed to show the MX200 as "better" than it once was, if properly tested, this should not have been shown as such.IMHO, if a drive at a specific time using a specific set of drivers etc had say a data rate of 217.85 (crucial MX200 500gb) why does this review "change" to show this same drive now being 235 (a gain of around 8%)
numbers should not be becoming "magically better" IMO, unless firmware was changed without notification, or tests were not run properly the first time around or something like that?
it is quite hard to do direct comparisons when your data does not agree with itself ^.^
MX500 is supposed to be "a fair bit quicker" in most things than MX200 or MX300 (around 18% for the 500gb models..20 odd % for the 1tb models) something is not agreeing with itself based on your data/numbers/review, this is troublesome to say the least, so I suppose my question in this regard is, how "factual" is the testing methodology being used, such as latency numbers (where the original data of MX200 read higher numbers in ms than this review does making this review appearing as if the mx200 is that much faster than it was previously (less latency)
and the power consumption was also higher previously whereas in this review it uses "less" power, the heck is up with this?
if one screwed up original testing methodology "I understand" but, if one just changes data willy nilly to suit vendors or make the older or newer stuff appear better than it actually is, screw that noise (we already have plenty enough companies/corps that do that crud daily..like Ngreedia, Apple, Intel, MSFT etc)
Just saying, had my eye on the MX500, my MX100 256gb has been working very well for me last 2.5-3 years or something like that (still at 99% life) MX200 500gb still snappy (though not quite as snappy as the MX100 for some reason and I have never had it "loaded" currently is at 92% life and yet is at least a 9 month newer drive, have not copied.deleted anywhere close to as much as it claims I have which is confusing...MX500 is supposed to have that much more endurance, but, if the MX200 seems to "chew" endurance more than it should, that is not a good thing.
I have taken all the steps I can to reduce writing to the drive (unless needed) have trim on since day 1 etc...
Anyways, compare the "original" MX200 data you reviewed dated may 22, 2015, with this review dated february 2, 2018, quite a difference in appearances from how so so the drive appeared (MX200) vs the way it "now" appears (seems like not quite a poor drive, though it never was crud drive)
https://www.anandtech.com/show/9258/crucial-mx200-...
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12263/the-crucial-m...
would say IMO, double check your info (past info) so you are not making silly mistakes if possible (I know no one is perfect by all means, but I highly doubt you keep hundreds of drives on hand so you can test them a year or 2 down the line, most review sites do not, so does this mean pulling numbers out of thin air?)
take care, love your site by all means, lots of good reading ^.^
dpjtpa - Friday, June 14, 2019 - link
This is definitely the option I will be purchasing soon