• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Crucial MX300

A

arandomguy

Senior member
Already listed on Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Crucial-MX300...&qid=1461466681&sr=8-1&keywords=crucial+mx300

Assuming listing is accurate looks like MX300 will be using atypical capacities, 750GB in this case, in account of the atypical die capacity. Dynamic write acceleration carry over from MX200? TLC NAND is no surprise.

What might be worrying is

MX300 750GB (presumably 16 dies)
Sequential reads/writes up to 530/510 MB/s and random reads/writes up to 92k/83k on all file types
Click to expand...
MX200 250GB (16 dies)
  • Sequential reads/writes up to 555 / 500 MB/s on all file types
  • Random reads/writes up to 100k / 87k IOPS
Click to expand...
BX200 actually had higher official specs than BX100 aside from random read IOPS 😉 And if you are wondering MX200 had higher specs across the board officially than MX100.
 
the tlc is a bit of a let down for me, I'm guessing there will be an mlc version soon after ?
m.2 nvme 3d nand mlc would be nice
samsung complete dominance is getting kinda boring
 
Surprised they are doing a 750GB. Samsung binned that off because people just bought 1TB instead.
 
The 384Gbit die is TLC. MLC is 256Gbit. For now we don't know for sure which the MX300 uses, though, as 750GB is perfectly possible with 256Gbit dies as well.
 
I like 750GB capacity. $150 for the 500GB 850 EVO and $350 for the 1TB, if Crucial can hit $200-$225 for 750GB, with ~90% of the performance, they've got a winner. Now let's see the reviews and pricing.
 
I wonder how low on the capacity they will go with these?

Interestingly enough each of the dies has four planes.
 
cbn said:
I wonder how low on the capacity they will go with these?

Interestingly enough each of the dies has four planes.
Click to expand...

Four-plane design is mandatory for such a large die with current SSD capacities, especially given that the cell-level performance of Micron 3D NAND doesn't look too good.

20160418134718.png


http://m.chinaflashmarket.com/news/industry/152396
 
Last edited:
I REALLY hope that the TLC spec is in error for the MX300. Otherwise, this would be a first, to have an MX-series drive with TLC rather than MLC.
 
VirtualLarry said:
I REALLY hope that the TLC spec is in error for the MX300. Otherwise, this would be a first, to have an MX-series drive with TLC rather than MLC.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt it's an error, given that BX series also has a TLC based SSD and an MLC based one. Crucial's naming logic just doesn't seem to have much to do with NAND type.
 
VirtualLarry said:
I REALLY hope that the TLC spec is in error for the MX300. Otherwise, this would be a first, to have an MX-series drive with TLC rather than MLC.
Click to expand...

yeah, but they've made a budget drive with the mx naming before with the mx100
I guess that wasn't tlc, but it was budget 4 channel

Seems like crucial has a marketing issue, confusing the highend and the lowend, also the micron branded ones aren't much different
 
Last edited:
jaydee said:
I like 750GB capacity. $150 for the 500GB 850 EVO and $350 for the 1TB, if Crucial can hit $200-$225 for 750GB, with ~90% of the performance, they've got a winner. Now let's see the reviews and pricing.
Click to expand...

Yeah the capacity makes sense. With video cards, it seems there's one at every $10 pricing bracket, but going from 500GB to 1TB to 2TB SSD's, the price difference is quite large (in absolute terms, not necessarily in $/GB). A 1.5TB model would also be nice as a stepping stone between 1TB and the ridiculously expensive 2TB drives.
 
VirtualLarry said:
Race to the Bottom... race to the bottom. (New 3D NAND leading the charge!)
Click to expand...

This really irks me, but apparently all people care about is price these days.
Who cares about reliability. 🙁

I am hoping NAND replacement comes sooner rather than later.
 
Elixer said:
This really irks me, but apparently all people care about is price these days.
Who cares about reliability. 🙁

I am hoping NAND replacement comes sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

It's all in the process size to use. I personally think that using TLC on 3d nand seems completely pointless. But if the process is a large on like Samsung (40nm), then it doesn't matter if it is TLC at least for reason's we worry about TLC. Data retention and write allowance will be through the roof.
 
hojnikb said:
wow, does ldpc have such an impact on endurance with 2d flash aswell ?

although mlc endurance doesnt seems all that good, if its fabbed at 4x nm process.
Click to expand...

Wow I should have read that diagram more before my post. What process are they doing that on? That is just terrible endurance.
 
Elixer said:
This really irks me, but apparently all people care about is price these days.
Who cares about reliability. 🙁

I am hoping NAND replacement comes sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...
Reliability has very little to do with the type of NAND in question, TLC vs MLC, except the fringe cases of 840 (Evo) & more to do with controller & firmware. 3D NAND, I suspect, will forever change the common perception about TLC, even though MLC & SLC will always remain superior to it.
 
hojnikb said:
wow, does ldpc have such an impact on endurance with 2d flash aswell ?

although mlc endurance doesnt seems all that good, if its fabbed at 4x nm process.
Click to expand...

It may be based on controllers claiming to be able to improve the endurance by up to three times through use of techniques like NANDXtend and NANDEdge.
NANDEdge being the one used in the controller in the BX300.

But Lite-on and Plextor have SSDs using Toshiba/SanDisk 19/15nm TLC NAND respectively that claim to have a total of 2000 write cycles using LDPC which is said to increase endurance by 33%.
With one using the same controller as BX300 and the other using a newer revision of it.

So they do not claim as much of an improvement due to LDPC but still claim to have just as many write cycles using 15nm 2D TLC NAND combined with BCH ECC as 40+nm 3D TLC NAND using LDPC.
Which feels a bit counterintuitive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top