Crucial MX200 vs MX100 bad for intensive IO workloads + big bootup difference

[omega3]

Read a couple of reviews and still don't know if the MX200 is better then the 100 or not, esp. in the 250GB size which seems important to mention since diff sizes give diff performance apparently.

On one hand the MX200 seems to have new or better features like
- Dynamic Write Acceleration.. why is that unique to the 250GB model?

- better overprovisioning in that size model

- according to this review there's huge diff between bootup time in Windows 7, namely 5.1 s vs 14 s.. does that make sense.. it's with the 500GB though so not sure the same would apply to the 250GB models

On the downside, the MX200 scores pretty bad with intensive IO workloads according to the Anandtech review here. Especially the average service time shows a VERY large latency in comparison to all other drives. The review says "Especially the performance of the 250GB is surprisingly bad and it looks like Crucial's SLC cache implementation isn't optimal for intensive IO workloads."

Does intensive workloads also include for example having 15 tabs open at the same time in Chrome?

So in context of both performance and endurance, which is the better choice for the 250GB model? Price is very close so that doesn't matter.

Would wanna buy it these weekend so thanks for all good advice!

 

[w0ss]

Here is how I look at Dynamic Write Acceleration: Our drive is slow so we need to do some magic to make it look faster if your only doing a "small" amount of work.

For the average desktop user it is probably fine, Me personally I wouldn't buy a drive that had it.

It is probably unique to the 250GB because the larger drives have enough performance that it isn't required.

 

[omega3]

Here is how I look at Dynamic Write Acceleration: Our drive is slow so we need to do some magic to make it look faster if your only doing a "small" amount of work.

For the average desktop user it is probably fine, Me personally I wouldn't buy a drive that had it.

It is probably unique to the 250GB because the larger drives have enough performance that it isn't required.

How is DWA benifit only related to "small" workload (and what is meant by that).. either way if it helps then that's a plus for the MX200 I guess

My main concern with MX200 is that it scores exceptionally bad in the average service time latency bench and intensive IO workloads as I mentioned above.

Would love everybody's opionon about that and the stuff i mentioned before above.. thanks! 🙂

 

[beginner99]

How is DWA benifit only related to "small" workload (and what is meant by that).. either way if it helps then that's a plus for the MX200 I guess

My main concern with MX200 is that it scores exceptionally bad in the average service time latency bench and intensive IO workloads as I mentioned above.

Would love everybody's opionon about that and the stuff i mentioned before above.. thanks! 🙂

Not even advanced enthusiast user will ever come close to something like "The Destroyer" unless he does it on purpose. Do you run a database and web server with 100s of concurrent users? I doubt it. And so forth. The main thing that matters is going from HDD to an SSD due to latency and Random reads and writes. My mx100 doesn't feel any faster than my intel G2 80 Gb did and it clear the mx100 just crushes the G2 in these tests.

 

[omega3]

Not even advanced enthusiast user will ever come close to something like "The Destroyer" unless he does it on purpose. Do you run a database and web server with 100s of concurrent users? I doubt it. And so forth. The main thing that matters is going from HDD to an SSD due to latency and Random reads and writes. My mx100 doesn't feel any faster than my intel G2 80 Gb did and it clear the mx100 just crushes the G2 in these tests.

I see but not sure when Anandtech says: "Especially the performance of the 250GB is surprisingly bad and it looks like Crucial's SLC cache implementation isn't optimal for intensive IO workloads" can't hurt in real life situations.

This aside, is it so that the MX200 is the better drive because of the faster bootup time, larger overprovisioning, DWA, etc..?

 

[beginner99]

I see but not sure when Anandtech says: "Especially the performance of the 250GB is surprisingly bad and it looks like Crucial's SLC cache implementation isn't optimal for intensive IO workloads" can't hurt in real life situations.

This aside, is it so that the MX200 is the better drive because of the faster bootup time, larger overprovisioning, DWA, etc..?

DWA uses most of the flash in SLC fashion. If you don't know what SLC means, read this article. Consumer SSDs use MLC which has double the capacity but is slower than SLC. An SSD has a certain amount of channels you can connect NAND to. On the smaller drives using flash from newest node you usually don't use all the channels and hence especially writes will be slower.
If you however write to the drive in SLC mode, it can get the same speed as a higher drive but must then later on move everything that was written into MLC. This also takes time and explains the huge latency. If you fill up the space available in SLC mode, the drives starts copying stuff over to MLC and hence will actually become slower than without the cache.

But then we are back again at your usage scenario and for that I'm pretty sure it will be an advanatge.

 

[omega3]

DWA uses most of the flash in SLC fashion. If you don't know what SLC means, read this article. Consumer SSDs use MLC which has double the capacity but is slower than SLC. An SSD has a certain amount of channels you can connect NAND to. On the smaller drives using flash from newest node you usually don't use all the channels and hence especially writes will be slower.
If you however write to the drive in SLC mode, it can get the same speed as a higher drive but must then later on move everything that was written into MLC. This also takes time and explains the huge latency. If you fill up the space available in SLC mode, the drives starts copying stuff over to MLC and hence will actually become slower than without the cache.

But then we are back again at your usage scenario and for that I'm pretty sure it will be an advanatge.

So as long as you don't write files bigger then the space in SLC mode, you won't see the latency, is that correct?

How big is that space in SLC mode?

 

[beginner99]

So as long as you don't write files bigger then the space in SLC mode, you won't see the latency, is that correct?

How big is that space in SLC mode?

More or less correct and I don't know the exact implementation. I would say if you write at full speed multiple large files (not just one) it can cause latency as well.

AFAIK the space depends on how much free space you have. The less, the less SLC will be used. With current pricing I suggest to get a 512 GB drive anyway. It's a pain in the ass to manage your drive from not getting full and with ssd, you usually want to leave some empty space.

 

[Berryracer]

Just get the SanDisk Extreme PRO 240 GB it has one of the highest performance and great performance consistency.