Crucial MX200 500GB Review (Page 5 of 10)

Page 5 - Benchmark: Crystal Disk Mark

About Crystal Disk Mark

- Measure sequential reads/writes speed
- Measure random 512KB, 4KB, 4KB (Queue Depth=32) reads/writes speed
- Select test data (Random, 0Fill, 1Fill)

From: Developer's Page

Crystal Disk Mark 3.0 is in the spotlight. Just a bit of background information; higher capacity drives traditionally tend to perform a little better in these tests. The ability of a controller and flash memory to deliver high IOPS will provide huge benefits to the score as well. As you can see in our charts above, compared against a few select drives, namely, the Crucial BX100 500GB, Crucial MX100 256GB, and Patriot Ignite 480GB, the Crucial MX200 500GB scored about mid-pack on average, which was not bad. In the Read category, it was quite comparable to the MX100. In the Write category, again, it scored neither the best nor the worst for almost every test, but like what we have seen in ATTO, it was a big improvement over its predecessor, and mostly faster than the BX100, except for the 4K write test. Overall, there was no clear winner in any of the categories, and the mainstream MX200 500GB delivered performance quite in line with the competition. I will let you check out our massive comparison graphs above.

Page Index
1. Introduction, Packaging, Specifications
2. A Closer Look, Test System
3. Benchmark: AIDA64 Disk Benchmark
4. Benchmark: ATTO Disk Benchmark
5. Benchmark: Crystal Disk Mark 3.0
6. Benchmark: HD Tach
7. Benchmark: HD Tune Pro 4.60
8. Benchmark: PassMark PerformanceTest 8.0
9. Benchmark: PCMark Vantage
10. Conclusion