Crucial MX300 750GB Review (Page 5 of 11)

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 MX200 500GB, OCZ Trion 150 480GB, and Kingston SSDNow UV400 480GB, the Crucial MX300 750GB came up last or close to last in half the results, although it was always very close behind even if it was last. In the Read category, it was slower than its predecessor in the sequential tests. However, it tied the MX200 in the 4K test, and even managed to exceed it in the 4K QD32 results. In the Write category, again, we can see a similar pattern, except it totally destroyed the MX200 in the 4K test to be in the same category with the other SSDs of interest. Overall, the mainstream MX300 750GB delivered performance quite in line with the competition, even though it occasionally came up a little bit short. 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. Benchmark: PCMark 8
11. Conclusion