Crucial MX300 2TB SSD Review

[Guest]

Crucial's MX300 is the best example of why IMFT moved to a high-capacity 3D NAND die. We test the first 2TB SSD from the company to see the cost savings first hand.

Crucial MX300 2TB SSD Review : Read more

 

[xyriin]

The performance is a bit disappointing to say the least, but not unexpected. And while I like Micron NAND, I absolutely hate Crucial's Storage Executive software and their firmware updates.

Looks like I'll be sticking with Samsung EVOs for my capacity needs at least in the near future.

 

[Game256]

"We are currently in the middle of a NAND shortage due to the slower than expected transition to 3D NAND, new smartphones with increased capacity, and an assortment of flash-powered products coming to market. One company representative told me just days ago that, in his opinion, this is the worst shortage we've ever had."

There is some wild shit happening with Samsung's 960 drives. Still zero information on 960 EVO. They moved the expected release dates multiple times on their site and finally stopped accepting pre-orders at all.

 

[elbert]

I wonder how 2 X 1TB's would do given they are cheaper than a single 2TB? I would like to see more drive and possible combo. I would want an M.2 960 EVO 512GB with the 1TB Crucial MX300 myself.

 

[Rookie_MIB]

I'm actually ok with the performance figures listed because:

1) It's reasonably priced. If they were pricing it like a 2TB Evo, no way. But at a $500 price range, that's not bad - about $0.25/GB.

2) It's got good capacity. My NAS is outfitted with 2TB drives - these could be replacements... although I'd need five of them. Hmmm.. Maybe not quite yet.

3) They're still MUCH faster and more reliable than HDDs.

It might not be a home run hit, but it's a solid double at least.

 

[mczak1]

Kind of a pity Crucial doesn't offer the maximum capacity with 8 nand chips (albeit I don't know if the controller would support it), which would be 3GB. The 2GB version has 4 384GB chips (using 8 48GB dies each), 3 144GB ones and one 96GB one, you have to be kidding me... (fwiw the 525 and 1050GB versions use asymmetric configurations as well albeit noone seems to have noticed, 3 144GB / 1 96GB chip and twice the number of chips for the 1050GB version). Kind of interesting such asymmetric configurations don't seem to suffer from some weird performance anomalies...

 

[mczak1]

Kind of a pity Crucial doesn't offer the maximum capacity with 8 nand chips (albeit I don't know if the controller would support it), which would be 3GB. The 2GB version has 4 384GB chips (using 8 48GB dies each), 3 144GB ones and one 96GB one, you have to be kidding me... (fwiw the 525 and 1050GB versions use asymmetric configurations as well albeit noone seems to have noticed, 3 144GB / 1 96GB chip and twice the number of chips for the 1050GB version). Kind of interesting such asymmetric configurations don't seem to suffer from some weird performance anomalies...

Errm that should have been 3 TB and 2TB above, of course...

 

[nukemaster]

I think it still ok for the price, The 850 evo is still much more costly in the stores i have access to.

 

[Bruce427]

** There is some wild [stuff] happening with Samsung's 960 drives. Still zero information on 960 EVO. They moved the expected release dates multiple times on their site and finally stopped accepting pre-orders at all. **

I had planned to purchase three 960 EVO 500GB drives. But this "unknown" delivery date situation prompted me to go ahead and buy two NVMe drives of another brand.

Best-in-class performance is of little value if they can't deliver the drives.

At the very least, Samsung should update their customers on what is going on, and their new target release date(s).