You still haven't bought a Crucial MX100?

Subject: Storage | June 10, 2014 - 07:00 PM |
Tagged: ssd, 16nm, crucial, mx100

For a mere $100 you can pick up the 256GB model or for $200 you can double that to 512GB.  That certainly makes the drives attractive but the performance is there as well, often beating its predecessor the MX500 series.  If reliability is a concern the onboard RAIN feature guards against writes to bad flash, there are onboard capacitors to allow writes to finish in the case of power outages and a 3 year warranty.  Check out the full review at The Tech Report if you need a second opinion after Allyn's review.

View Full Size

"The Crucial MX100 is the first solid-state drive to use Micron's 16-nm MLC NAND. It's also one of the most affordable SSDs around, with the 256GB version priced at $109.99 and the 512GB at $224.99. We take a closer look at how the two stack up against a range of competitors, and the results might surprise you."

Here are some more Storage reviews from around the web:


Video News

June 10, 2014 | 07:50 PM - Posted by godrilla (not verified)

I was going to with a 512 gig raid but every raid ssd review suggests raid results only favor synthetics, real world results are favorable in single ssds, load times and access times are better as well.

June 11, 2014 | 01:51 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Try out a RAM cache with one SSD. It may surprise you.

June 11, 2014 | 02:27 PM - Posted by godrilla (not verified)

This review on rapid cache on the evo is actually worse.

June 10, 2014 | 09:00 PM - Posted by jkreykes

Samsung EVO or the Crucial MX100?

June 10, 2014 | 10:59 PM - Posted by godrilla (not verified)

Depends on the price? If you go with 512/500 gig which is max on the mx100 it's it's cheaper on mx100 but slightly better on evo real world very similar, at the lower size ones the evo is better because the writes are better but the mx100 is again cheaper. I would go with the mx100 only for the 512 gig size.

June 11, 2014 | 07:55 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Stupid there's no TB options. At these prices, they could sell a $450 1TB or $900 2TB.

June 11, 2014 | 10:23 AM - Posted by godrilla (not verified)

If it was up to me I would do 4 terabytes and for 20 cents a gig but it's not

June 11, 2014 | 10:39 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

The difference is that they could sell a 1TB or 2TB drive for the prices above.

June 11, 2014 | 10:52 AM - Posted by godrilla (not verified)

I think I has to do with 16 nm yields

June 11, 2014 | 12:59 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

No, it's just marketing. A 1-2TB MX100 would cannibalize M550 sales. They'll eventually release a higher capacity MX100 (or successor) and when they do, maybe it will be $0.30/GB.

June 11, 2014 | 01:08 PM - Posted by jkreykes

I went with the 512 MX100 just can't beat the price.

June 11, 2014 | 09:35 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I've replaced so many of their memory sticks I will never buy crucial anything...gladly pay another 40 bucks for samsung

June 11, 2014 | 10:50 AM - Posted by godrilla (not verified)

When it comes to ram corsair and in recent years g.skill is top brands, but for ssds marvel and Samsung are top

June 12, 2014 | 01:27 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I agree. Crucial sucks dirt when it comes to reliability on their RAM stick products. They are always failing on me when I go buy their RAM sticks for memory upgrades in my desktop tower computers.

June 11, 2014 | 10:18 AM - Posted by MarkT (not verified)

My m4 has been stable for years....mlc, not tlc tho.

June 11, 2014 | 03:18 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I'll take 2 of the C-note value SSDs and RAID them for more IOps, everything else staged on the hard drive. do these drives come with some tiered caching management software to auto stage code and data between a SSD raid and hard drive longer term and back up volume/s.

July 20, 2014 | 03:33 PM - Posted by Kristian R (not verified)

Yesterday my Crucial C300 256gb and C300 128gb both DIED after I tried to update the firmware. Crucial won't replace or repair them because they are almost 4 years old, and they only have 3 years warrenty. The drives were top of the line when I bought them and they were EXPENSIVE. Fucking waste of money, and crappy support. The drives were working fine until their firmware update program fucked them up. :/

I think they ought to replace them don't you?

I think I'll try a Samsung EVO 256gb next. Running Windows 8 on an old mechanical disk now. Just.. Eeeew. :)

July 25, 2014 | 01:03 PM - Posted by Chris R (not verified)

Waste of money? Strange you say that when they ran for the full length of their warranty without an issue.

We've got a shit tonne of them and we've had 1 failure. With that one we're not even sure it was the drive as it worked in a laptop fine afterwords.

October 30, 2014 | 03:44 AM - Posted by davidyin

I got it for 100 bucks.
I tested it on SATA II and SATA III

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.