MX200 - available but no reviews?

[aman74]

Just the nature of the beast. Some old drives would end up even worse.

I didn't know. I'm just learning in depth about the newer stuff, I haven't done a build in a long time. From my general reading I thought the slowdown from filling up was more an issue at 80-90%?

I did here that it was more an issue for older drives, but the way the author brought it up was as if it's not really competitive currently. I'm strongly considering the drive, so trying to discern if that's just the way they all are?

 

[RaistlinZ]

Real world benchmarks seems to be quite poor.

You can buy a 1TB Samsung 850 EVO for $70.00 less than a 1TB Crucial MX200. :hmm:

 

[Cerb]

I didn't know. I'm just learning in depth about the newer stuff, I haven't done a build in a long time. From my general reading I thought the slowdown from filling up was more an issue at 80-90%?

I did here that it was more an issue for older drives, but the way the author brought it up was as if it's not really competitive currently. I'm strongly considering the drive, so trying to discern if that's just the way they all are?

The less free space there is, the more work it has to do per write, moving around old data. With more free space, it can have many whole blocks ready to write to. How much varies by drive. As a rule, drives from 2012 or older, with a few exceptions, tend to fare far worse than even slow drives of today, though.

You can see what happens with several other SSDs, here, at 50%, 75%, and 100% full:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Crucial/MX200_250_GB/5.html

Do keep in mind here that you're looking at graphs dealing with writing unrealistic random write loads, with scales set to 50x or more per division the performance of a HDD, along with having much lower average latency.