Why you can trust TechRadar We spend hours testing every product or service we review, so you can be sure you’re buying the best. Find out more about how we test.
I tested the MX100 with a range of tools that use different sets of raw data to give transfer rates for reading and writing. One tool, ATTO Disk Benchmark, uses compressible data, while CrystalDiskMark and AS SSD use incompressible data. The difference is important, because some SSD controllers perform far better with compressible data than incompressible. AS SSD is generally the toughest test for any SSD.
CrystalDiskMark reported sequential read speeds of 484MB/s and write speeds of 469MB/s, coming in slightly under the claimed performance. AS SSD was closer though, with 495MB/s reading and 461MB/s writing.
The CrystalDiskMark 4K QD32 transfer rates, which provide the figure for IOPS, were 392MB/s read and 339MB/s write, which slightly exceeds Crucial's specification, with 100,000 read IOPS and 86,000 write IOPS.
Compare and contrast
In comparison, Samsung's 850 Pro beats these figures, with 550MB/s sequential read and 525MB/s sequential write, but the Samsung 845DC Evo comes in lower at writing, with 438MB/s. Likewise the 850 Pro offers higher IOPS too, but the 845DC Evo is slightly lower.
ATTO shows a greater difference between the 850 Pro and the Crucial MX100. This tool tests a range of different data sizes, from 512 bytes up to 8KB writes. At the lower data sizes, the 850 Pro leaves the MX100 in the dust, with 47MB/s write speeds, compared with 33MB/s for the MX100, and 54MB/s read speeds, compared with 19MB/s. But the 845 Evo results are completely different: 20MB/s writing and 47MB/s reading.
PCMark 08 scores were extremely close to other SSDs I've tested. The overall result came in at 3880, just a tiny amount short of the 3884 I recorded when first testing the Samsung 850 Pro. The storage result was a fair amount lower though – 4998 points compared with the 850 Pro's 5042.
These differences in PCMark08 are so small, it's certain they won't make much difference to real-world performance. The MX100 performs well across the board, but undercuts its rivals by a considerable margin.
